1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.492 OF 2009. Mahavir S/o Prabhakar Lingayat, Age 43 years, Occ.Service, R/o N-11, E-57/7, Mayur Nagar, Hudco, Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus Manohar S/o Ganpatrao Solunke and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.M.Vibhute, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.V.Deshpande, advocate for the Respondent No. 1. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 27.08.2009. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2 2. By this petition, the petitioner who is original complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, challenges order dated 15.5.2009, rendered by the Revisional Court. The petitioner filed private complaint case bearing SCC No.7863/2006, for offence U/s 138 of the N.I.Act. His case is that he and the Respondent No.1 are co-workers. There was cordial relationship between them. He gave hand loan of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) to the Respondent No.1 without interest and due to friendly relations. The Respondent o.1 assured to repay the amount within a period of couple of months. The Respondent No.1 did not, however, keep his word. On persistent demands, he issued cheque dated 18.8.2006, for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. The cheque was dishonoured when presented for encashment to the Bank. Though, demand notice was issued on 18.9.2006 and was duly served on Respondent No.1 on 22.9.2006, yet, the latter did not repay the amount nor gave any reply to the demand notice. Consequently, the private 3 complaint case was instituted. The Respondent No.1 asserted that an agreement was entered into between them on 13.10.2004, whereby the dispute was resolved. The Respondent submitted an application (Exh.45) on 8.4.2008. He prayed for sending of the said agreement bearing Exh.39 to handwriting expert along with natural, admitted and specimen signatures of the complainant. The application was allowed. The signature of complainant was taken in the open Court and the same was sent to the handwriting expert along with the original agreement (Exh.39). The handwriting expert's opinion was received. Again another application dated 24.2.2009 was given by the Respondent,whereby it was prayed that the disputed signature on the document along with admitted and natural signatures of the complainant may be forwarded to the handwriting expert. This time, the application (Exh.52) came to be rejected. The learned Sessions Judge allowed Criminal Revision Petition No.117/2009 against such order. 3. Clinching question is whether in the 4 exercise of the Revisional jurisdiction, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have interfered with the discretionary order of the learned Magistrate, whereby the second application of the Respondent was rejected. Mr.J.V. Deshpande, submits that the application ought to have been granted inasmuch as the natural and admitted signatures of the complainant were required for comparison purpose but only the specimen signatures taken in the open Court were sent. 4. The learned Magistrate gave necessary opportunity to the Respondent (accused) for sending of the document in question to the handwriting expert. The specimen signatures of the petitioner (complainant) were taken in the open Court. It is important to note that the signature on the cheque in question was not disputed by the Respondent (accused). The alleged transaction of hand loan took place before 18.8.2006. The disputed cheque was issued on 18.8.2006 after persuasion made by the complainant. The so-called agreement dated 13.10.2004 was allegedly executed by the 5 complainant/petitioner on 13.10.2004. The agreement is signed by attesting witnesses. The Respondent is at liberty to examine the attesting witnesses and prove the execution of the said document. It was not necessary, therefore, to refer the document i.e. agreement dated 13.10.2004 to handwriting expert. Moreover, request could be made to the learned Magistrate to compare the admitted signatures of the complainant with the signatures appearing as executant of the agreement in question. The further reference of the document to the handwriting expert was likely to protract the hearing of the complaint case. The remedy is of speedy nature. In this view of the matter, the impugned order rendered by learned Sessions Judge in the Criminal Revision Application is unsustainable. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The learned Magistrate may, however, give further opportunity to the Respondent to lead evidence of the attesting witnesses of the document in question 6 in order to prove the real nature of the transaction. The learned Magistrate may also allow the Respondent to examine any witness of the Patsanstha (Credit Society) in order to prove that the petitioner (complainant) had obtained loan from the Credit Society so as to pay the amount of Rs.47,500/- (Rupees forty seven thousand five hundred) to the Respondent/accused. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp49209