1 S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.166/2010 Shehzad Khan vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 25.01.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Takhat Singh Rathore, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. whereby the accused petitioner has impugned the order dated 27th November, 2009 rendered by the Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur as well as the order dated 06.08.2009 rendered by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.12 (S.D.), Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and carefully perused the impugned orders dated 27th November, 2009 and 06.08.2009 rendered by the courtS below as also other material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that he filed a criminal revision petition against the order dated 6th August, 2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.12, Jaipur City, whereby the learned trial court dismissed the application wherein it was prayed to send the disputed signatures of the accused petitioner to Handwriting Expert for comparison. Learned trial court without assigning any reason dismissed the application. Aggrieved with the order dated 6th August, 2009, he filed a criminal revision in the court of Session. The learned Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City, 2 Jaipur dismissed the criminal revision vide order dated 27.11.2009 without considering the facts of the case. He pointedly suggested to the complainant that the cheque did not bear the signatures of the accused. Similarly, he put other material questions to the complainant but despite all, courts below rejected his application as also the criminal revision petition. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the material on record, it is noticed that the learned trial court categorically mentioned in the impugned order that the court had ample power under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act to compare the signatures of the accused petitioner with the disputed signatures. The court did not think it just and proper to send so called disputed signatures to the Handwriting Expert for its comparison. It is also noticed that the alleged cheque given by the accused petitioner was dishonored on account of insufficient funds. It was mentioned nowhere by the Bank Manager that the signature on cheque did not tally with the specimen signature of the accused petitioner lying in the Bank. Had the signatures of the accused petitioner not tallied with the signatures made on the cheque, the cheque would have been dishonored by the Bank Manager on the ground that the signatures on cheque did not tally with the specimen signatures of the accused petitioner, but the cheque was dishonored on account of the insufficient funds. Undisputedly and undeniably learned trial court has got ample powers to compare the signatures of the accused with the disputed signatures with the naked eyes. If he feels proper, he could obtain the specimen signatures of the accused in the court and tally 3 the same with the disputed signatures. Power of comparing the signatures lies with the Magistrate under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act. I do find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the trial court dated 06.08.2009 as also in the order dated 27th November, 2009 passed in criminal revision. There is nothing on record which may lead the Court to invoke inherent jurisdiction. Hence, in view of the above facts, Criminal misc. petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed. 5. For the reasons stated above, the petition being bereft of merits stands dismissed at the threshold. 6. In view of the dismissal of misc. petition, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands disposed of. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- s-10