Dismissed

Pradeep Vishwanath Waghmare v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC3 Dec 2014WP/302/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed criminal writ petition challenging rejection of prayer for handwriting comparison. Court held application premature as complainant had not closed evidence and accused must first disclose defence.

What did the court decide?

None. Writ petition dismissed with observations that application will lie after evidence closure and defence disclosure.

Pradeep Vishwanath Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Cri.W.P. No. 302/14

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 302 OF 2014

¶5

Pradeep s/o. Vishwanath Waghmare

¶6

....Petitioner.

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

....Respondents.

¶10

Mr. N.B. Narwade, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.S. Shinde, APP for State.

¶11

mr. S.V. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶12

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 3rd December, 2014.

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

The application is filed to challenge the order made

¶15

by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parner on Exh. 73 in S.T.C. No. 454/2004. The proceeding is filed by present respondent No. 2, original complainant for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The application at Exh. 73 was moved by the present petitioner, accused for sending some documents like the vouchers at Exhs. 67, 68 and 69 to hand writing expert for comparison of signatures of the accused with the signatures appearing on Exhs. 67, 68 and 69. After hearing both the sides, the learned Magistrate has rejected the application. it appears that the learned Magistrate has

¶16

Cri.W.P. No. 302/14

¶17

¶18

referred the provisions of sections 45 and 73 of Evidence Act and it is observed that even the Court can compare the signatures on the disputed documents with the admitted signature.

¶19

The submissions made show that the complainant has not yet closed his evidence. After closing of the evidence by the complainant, there is stage of recording of statement of accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after that if the accused wants to lead the evidence, he can do so. But, first he has to disclose the defence by stepping in to witness box and if, according to him, the signatures appearing on Exhs. 67, 68 and 69 are forged, he is to say accordingly. Only after that, the Court can consider the prayer for sending the documents to hand writing expert for comparison of the signatures appearing on the documents with the admitted signature of the accused. Further, the relevancy of the disputed signatures appearing on the documents is to be considered by the said J.M.F.C. at the time of deciding the application like Exh. 73. This Court holds that the application, Exh. 73, was filed at premature stage.

¶20

In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that there will be right to the accused to make such prayer again when aforesaid procedure is followed. In that case, the

¶21

Cri.W.P. No. 302/14

¶22

¶23

Magistrate is to consider the application again. It needs to be observed that only in exception cases, the J.M.F.C. is expected to compare the signatures appearing on the documents with the admitted signature by using the provision of section 73 of Evidence Act. It can be said that at present, there was no need for sending the documents for comparison of the signatures to the expert and there is no possibility of the interference in the order made by the J.M.F.C.

¶24

With aforesaid observations, the writ petition is

¶25

dismissed.

¶26

[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶27

ssc/

Pradeep Vishwanath Waghmare v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Vishwanath Waghmare v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Subhashappa Mule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prabhakar Savlaram Bhalshankar Vs Prabhakar Sahebrao Nagre and Another

Balaprasad Gyaniramji Joshi Vs Sanjay Mulchandra Pande and Anr.

The State of Mah Vs Dattatraya Madhukar Nagarkar and Ors.

Shradha Saburi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Mariyadit, Chouraha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Abdul Sameer Abdul Samad Vs Meraj Noori Gulam Rabbani