1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2341 OF 2010 Suresh K. Pujara ..... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra ....... Respondent Mr. S.M. Saraogi i/b R.V. Sipahimalani adv. For the petitioner Mr. A.S. Shitole APP for State, CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATED : 20th October, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has aggrieved by the order passed by the Sessions Court in an application filed by him under sections 391, 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and under sec. 45 read with 67 of Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court and against the said order he preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court. When the matter was partly heard in appeal, at the final hearing stage, the present application was moved. In the application it was urged that certain 38 pay-in-slips were tendered by the prosecution, though no reference was made about those 38 pay-in-slips in the charge sheet or no application was filed for tendering the documents. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2 trial court has relied upon the pay-in-slips for the purposes of convicting the accused. According to the petitioner, therefore, an opportunity ought to have been given to the accused for sending the said 38 pay-in-slips to the Government hand writing expert for the opinion. It is also prayed that further investigation should be carried out by the police in respect of the said 38 pay-in-slips, to find out whether the said pay-in-slips were in the handwriting of any bank employees or officers sub-ordinate to P.W.no.1 or otherwise. The Sessions Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the trial court has relied upon the said pay-in-slips and therefore firstly the said pay-in-slips ought not to have been taken on record by the trial court and the objection raised by the accused in the trial was over-ruled. 2. Secondly, it was submitted that initially an application was made by the prosecution for further investigation of the case under sec. 173(8). However no additional charge sheet was filed for a period of ten years. He submitted that when the prosecution itself had thought it fit that it was necessary to have further investigation, the Sessions Court ought to have directed the investigating officer to complete further investigation and submit a report. The learned counsel invited my attention to the order passed by the trial court and the observations made by the trial court in respect of said 38 pay-in-slips. He also invited my attention to the order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the said application. 3 3. In my view, no case is made out for interference with the order passed by the Sessions Court. Sessions Court has given cogent reasons while rejecting the said application. Firstly the trial court has observed that this application was filed when the matter was part-heard and was kept for hearing the arguments of the appellant/accused. The Sessions court observed that on 5-12-2009 the arguments of the advocates for the appellant and the respondent were heard and the matter was posted for 14-12-2009 to enable the advocate for the appellant to file his written statement. On that day, however the counsel for the appellant remained absent and thereafter the application was filed under section 391 of Cr.P.C. The Sessions Court has thereafter observed that the question of sending the documents to handwriting expert did not arise. Since the P.W.No.1 in his evidence has stated that he had signed the account opening form after the signature of the accused, however the account opening form was not brought on record. Secondly the Sessions court has observed that P.W.Nos.1,3 and 5 in their examination-in-chief has not stated that 38 pay-in- slips were signed by them or they were filled in by them. The Sessions Court therefore came to the conclusion that the question of seeking the opinion of the hand writing expert in respect of the handwriting and signature of P.W.No.1, P.W.No.3 and P.W.No.5 did not arise and they were only attempted to protract the hearing of the appeal. The Sessions Court has then observed that so far as the signature of the accused and his handwriting is concerned, the account opening form was not on record and no suggestion was 4 made by the accused that the hand writing of the pay-in-slips is not of the accused. In my view therefore, the reasons given by the Sessions Court are cogent reasons and it is not necessary for me to interfere with the impugned order. It is always open for the petitioner to challenge the probative value of the pay-in-slips which are brought on record and all other submissions in respect of admissibility, relevance and all contentions therefore can be argued at the time of hearing of the appeal. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. (V. M. KANADE, J.)