1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI.APPLICATION NO.2016 OF 2008 IN CRI.APPEAL NO.514 OF 2008. (GAUTAMCHAND INDERCHAND KOCHAR VS. ANIL MANGILAL JAIN & ANR.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri Mahesh Gupta, Advocate for applicant. Shri S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for Respondent/State. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JANUARY 6, 2009. 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against judgment of acquittal rendered by Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Special Court) 138 of N.I. Act, Nagpur, whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act holding, amongst other things, that the complainant has failed to prove that the cheque in question was signed by the accused. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant took me through the evidence of handwriting expert, who had been 2 examined by the defence at the trial, to show that the signature on the cheque was not that of accused. The accused denied signature in course of the complainant's cross-examination. The complainant, however, did not take any steps to prove that the cheque in question had been signed by the accused. The complainant admitted that the cheque was, in fact, in the handwriting of the complainant himself. The complainant and the accused are close relations. In these circumstances, it is not clear as to what prompted the complainant to write the cheque and accused to sign it. The accused caused the cheque to be sent for examination by handwriting expert, whose evidence has been considered at length by the learned Magistrate. Merely because the handwriting expert failed to mention in his evidence that he has considered pictorial effect of the signatures, it does not follow that his report is untrustworthy. While giving his opinion he has specifically mentioned that he has considered all the relevant aspects of the matter. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that he had brought to the notice of the trial Court that it was 3 unsafe to base the judgment solely on the expert's opinion, without substantial corroboration, because a conviction could not be solely based on expert's opinion. As far as acquittal is concerned, if upon consideration of the material before it, the Court considers charge as not proved, the Court would be obliged to acquit, and an appellate Court would not be entitled to interfere, unless it is shown that the view taken by the learned trial Judge was perverse or totally untenable. 4. Here, upon appreciation of the evidence of handwriting expert, the trial Magistrate has drawn the conclusion, which cannot be called as perverse or untenable. None had prevented the complainant to tender evidence to show that the cheque in question was signed by the accused himself. The complainant seems to have carried the impression that it was for the accused to disprove that the accused had signed the cheque rather than for the complainant to prove that the accused had signed it. 4 5. Since there is no perversity in the view taken by the learned Magistrate and since the view is perfectly tenable, no interference is called for. Leave refused. Consequently the appeal is dismissed. JUDGE RR.