[1] SB CRIM. MISC. PET. NO. 839/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 839/2009 RAVINDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN Date: 04.11.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Mehla, Public Prosecutor for the State. **** The instant criminal misc. petition under 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 31.03.2009 passed by the Special Court (Fake Currency Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 155/2008, whereby the revision petition filed by the complainant-petitioner has been dismissed upholding the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 28.06.2008 passed in Criminal Case No.32/2007. The trial Court vide its order dated 28.06.2008 dismissed the application of the complainant-petitioner moved under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for comparison of the writing of the accused. I have heard learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have also carefully gone through the orders impugned dated 28.06.2008 and 31.03.2009 passed by the trial Court and the Revisional Court respectively. [2] SB CRIM. MISC. PET. NO. 839/2009 Upon careful perusal of the order dated 28.06.2008 passed by the trial Court, it reveals that the trial Court has only given the finding that at the time of final hearing and after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties, it will be seen whether documents Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are required to be compared with the writing of the accused and the finding given by the trial Court has been upheld by the Revisional Court vide its order impugned dated 31.03.2009. Still an opportunity is available to the petitioner at the time of final arguments and if the petitioner is able to satisfy the trial Court, the trial Court can pass order to compare the handwriting of documents Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, this Court do not want to interfere with the orders impugned passed by the trial Court and the Revisional Court. However, the petitioner is given liberty to move fresh application at an appropriate stage, as indicated by the trial Court. With these observations, the misc. petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The stay application also stands rejected. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/