1 Cri. W.P. 410 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Writ Petition No.410 Of 2011 Balaji s/o Laxman Chate. ... Petitioner. Versus Pravin s/o Subhashrao Honrao And Another. ... Respondent. -------- Shri. A.L. Tikle, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri. V.D. Rakh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.2. -------- CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 28th JUNE 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1) Heard learned counsel extensively. 2) In terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the applicant, by application Exhibit 99, has requested the learned Judge to refer the disputed cheque to handwriting expert for examination of the script thereon as the defence of the accused / applicant was that the cheque was stolen by brother of the complainant. 2 Cri. W.P. 410 of 2011 3) On my repeated asking the learned counsel as to whether it is so indicated in the evidence at any stage, upon which the learned counsel has submitted that it was so canvassed during the course of arguments. While going though the deposition I find that even there is no whisper to the stand now addressed by the applicant/ accused. 4) The reply to the statutory notice to which reference is given can very well be used as a defence by adducing appropriate evidence. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act speaks that inchoate stamped instrument creates authority in the holder of the cheque. The legal position also explained by the Apex Court in the matter of Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. Rajvir Industrties Ltd., AIR 2008 SC 1683. Taking overall view of the matter I do not find any error in the order questioned. The writ petition lacks merit, dismissed. 5) Liberty to the accused to keep all these points open and agitate the same before the learned Judge. Sd/- (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) 3 Cri. W.P. 410 of 2011 rsl