1 Cri.WP 162/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.162/2011. Omprakash s/o Devidas Baviskar - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Shashikant s/o Jagannath Udawant and another. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Swapnil S Patil, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.DK Kulkarni, Adv. For Respondent No.1; Mr.DR Korde, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 27th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Counsel for the petitioner called, absent. Heard Shri Kulkarni for Respondent no. 1/original accused. 2) In a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad by his judgment dated 27.2.2009 was pleased to convict the Respondent no.1 (the accused) by discarding his defence of repaying amount, for which the respondent no.1 had placed reliance on a diary entries made by the complainant, 2 Cri.WP 162/2011 acknowledging repayments. Learned JMFC did not accept the defence and convicted him. Criminal Appeal No.44/2009 was moved by Respondent No.1 against the above referred order of conviction. An application was made on 13.8.2010 below Exhibit-14 in the said appeal. Taking benefit of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking at the stage of final hearing for referring the diary to the hand-writing expert along with specimen signatures of the complainant/petitioner. The said application was allowed. Aggrieved by the order of allowing the application to refer the matter, the complainant is before this Court. 3) Having gone through the judgment of the learned JMFC, and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the appeal, I find that the order, allowing the application to refer the diary to the hand-writing expert, and directing the complainant to give six specimen signatures, is in conformity to the defence raised by the accused all throughout before the learned JMFC. The fate would be dependent on the report of the hand-writing expect and it may stamp or cement the defence or it may thwart the same. At this stage, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, allowing the application below 3 Cri.WP 162/2011 Exhibit-14, is illegal or calls for interference. Criminal Writ Petition lacks merit, dismissed. Rule discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/