pmw * 1 * wp1185-11-40 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1185 OF 2011 Shri Prakash Dadasaheb Deshmukh ..... Petitioner V/s. Sangli Vaibhav Co-op. Society and Anr. ..... Respondents * * * * * Mr. Makarand Panchakshri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kapil Dave, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mrs. U.V. Kezriwal, APP for State. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 1st December, 2011. P.C. :- 1. By the order dated 28th April, 2011 the petition was directed to be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Hence the rule. Rule is returnable forthwith. Petition is immediately taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Criminal Case No. 7282/SS/2009 filed by Respondent No.1 for the offence punishable pmw * 2 * wp1185-11-40 u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After respondent no.1 filed affidavit of examination-in-chief, the petitioner took adjournments for cross-examination of the complainant. Thereafter, instead of proceeding with the cross-examination of the complainant, he filed an application for sending the cheques in question to Forensic Laboratory for ascertaining the age of the documents, the signature and the hand writing thereon. A copy of the application is annexed to the petition at Exhibit-‘C’. Its perusal shows that there are several scandalous statements made therein against the Learned Judge before whom the proceedings are pending. Then at sub-paras (D) and (H) of para 8 are the inconsistent statements relating to the handwriting and signature on the cheques. At para 8 (D), the petitioner states that he had never issued instrument to Respondent No.1 and that he had never written it either on 11th April, 2009 or prior thereto. He also states that he has not signed the cheque on 11th April, 2009. Then at para 8(H) he states that all the cheques at the time of delivery were blank without any writing and without signature. 3. The Trial Court rejected the application observing that the defence of the petitioner was yet to be disclosed in cross- pmw * 3 * wp1185-11-40 examination of the complainant. The Trial Court was of the opinion that “merely on asking by the accused, the court cannot give away stage at cross-examination midway and oblige the accused, even without such defence being formally put to the complainant’s witness in trial”. The court also expressed its opinion that the petitioner can certainly exercise such right at the stage of defence evidence and the application without bringing the defence on record is premature. 4. The petitioner preferred the revision application challenging the order of the trial court. The revision application also was dismissed by the Sessions Court. 5. Perusal of the order of the trial court as also the Sessions Court makes it more than clear that there is no infirmity in the orders passed. The application by the petitioner was undoubtedly premature. Hence, the petition is dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]