((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3597 OF 2008 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3600 OF 2008 Madhukar Prabhakar Kulkarni Applicant versus Smt.Mangala Moreshwar Bhone & anr. Respondents Prakash Naik for applicant. S.V.Gajre, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 07th May 2009 PC : 1. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Code" for short) filed by the first accused in a complaint filed by the first respondent for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("said Act" for short). An application was made by the applicant for sending the cheque in dispute which is subject matter of the complaint for opinion of the handwriting expert. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Judge. A revision application was preferred by the first respondent which has been allowed by the ((-2-)) Sessions Court. The said order of the Sessions Court is the subject matter of challenge in this application. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the entire approach of the learned Sessions Court is erroneous. He submitted that the scope of Section 243 of the said Code is totally different. He submitted that as a result of the approach adopted by the Sessions Court, after the bank witness is examined by the first respondent-complainant, the Court may not permit the cheque to be sent to the handwriting expert for obtaining his opinion. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The application made by the applicant for sending the cheque for opinion of the handwriting expert is not rejected on the ground that the applicant is not entitled to seek the said relief. It is rejected by observing that the evidence of the first respondent-complainant is yet to be completed. The learned Judge has observed that the application made by the applicant was premature as the first respondent-complainant may adduce ((-3-)) the evidence of the bank officer on the point of the signature and handwriting on cheque. Thus, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the application of the applicant is not rejected on merits but it is rejected only on the ground that the same is premature with liberty to the applicant to make the said prayer at appropriate stage. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant expressed an apprehension that if the first respondent-complainant examines an officer of the bank on the point of alleged signature on the cheque, the learned Magistrate may not permit the applicant to apply for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert. In my view, there is no basis for the said apprehension. 5. Subject to what is stated above, no case for interference is made out. The jurisdiction under section 482 of the said Code is to be exercised sparingly. Criminal Applications are rejected. However, it is made clear that the impugned orders will not preclude the applicants from making a fresh application at appropriate stage for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert. ((-4-)) (A.S.OKA, J.)