Disposed¶5

Vitthal Punjaji Pawar (Deceased) through Its Legal Heir Mangesh Vitthalrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Dec 2025WP/1486/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Specimen handwriting; thumb impression samples; State Handwriting Expert; expert examination of disputed documents; rejection of request for expert report; Order dated 28.03.2011; adjournment of recording of evidence; substantial progress in trial; Senior Police Inspector Nashik Road Police Station; Nashik City; interim order; writ petition; Bombay High Court Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; S. M. Modak; 25.07.2025; WP 1486 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

No final relief granted; after hearing both sides the Court kept the matter pending and directed that it stand over to 14.08.2025, with the Petitioner to produce copies of the handwriting expert's evidence. ¶5

Vitthal Punjaji Pawar (Deceased) through Its Legal Heir Mangesh Vitthalrao Pawar vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Magistrate's rejection of the Complainant's request for expert examination / handling of the disputed documents and specimen thumb impression and signatures — despite samples having been taken and sent to the State Handwriting Expert in 2009 during investigation — is sustainable, given substantial progress in the trial and the fact that the expert has since given evidence.

¶3

Court's answer

Since the investigating officer sent samples of thumb impression and signatures to the handwriting expert, it needs to be seen whether the expert has actually examined them.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The handwriting expert has given evidence in the trial, and the Petitioner is directed to produce its copies thereof, as the interim course on the challenge to the Magistrate's rejection orders.

¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (S. M. Modak, J.; order dated 25.07.2025) — Writ Petition No. 1486 of 2025, Vitthal Punjaji Pawar (since deceased, represented by legal heir Mangesh Vitthal Pawar) v. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Challenge to orders of the learned Magistrate refusing successive requests — by the Accused (to call for the thumb impression report / adjourn recording of evidence, rejected 28.03.2011), by the Complainant (rejected for substantial progress in trial, at p.16 — the impugned order), and by the investigating agency (Senior Police Inspector, Nashik Road Police Station, seeking handing over of disputed documents and specimen handwriting) — for expert examination of thumb impression and signature samples collected during investigation in 2009 and sent to the State Handwriting Expert. The Court noted that the expert has given evidence, observed that it needs to be seen whether the expert actually examined the samples, directed the Petitioner to produce its copies, and stood the matter over to 14.08.2025. Interim order; no statute or precedent cited.

¶1

WP 1486-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1486 OF 2025

¶4

ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME

¶5

Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME

¶6

Date: 2025.07.29 20:09:38 +0530

¶7

Vitthal Punjaji Pawar (since deceased) .Petitioner through its legal heir Mr. Mangesh Vitthal Pawar

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & ors. .Respondents

¶10

Mr. Sanjeev B. Deore a/w. Ms. Suchita J. Pawar & Mr. Arman Ansari, Advocates, for the Petitioner

¶11

Ms. G. S. Rao, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State Mr. Akshay Bankapure, Advocate, for the Respondents Mr. K. D. Korade, API, Nashik Road Police Station present

¶12

CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.

¶13

DATE : 25.07.2025

¶14

P. C.

¶15

Heard Mr. Deore, Advocate for the Petitioner, Ms. Rao, learned APP for Respondent No. 1 – State and Mr. Bankapure, learned Advocate for the Respondents.

¶16

The record indicates that during the investigation, the officer has taken samples of the thumb impression as well as signatures and sent it to the State Handwriting Expert. The Accused requested the trial Court to call for report of thumb impression which is on page No. 28. The investing officer has also confirmed about taking

¶17

1 of 2

¶18

Anand

¶19

WP 1486-2025.doc

¶20

samples. It was in the year 2009. At that time, report was not there. Learned Magistrate has rejected request made on behalf of the Accused to adjourn recording of evidence. Learned Magistrate rejected it vide Order dated 28.03.2011which is on page No. 27.

¶21

The witnesses were examined. Now, it is turn of the Complainant to make similar request to the learned Magistrate. However, it was also rejected which is on page No. 16. It is on account of substantial progress in the trial. This Order is under challenge.

¶22

Learned APP has placed on record report given by the Senior Police Inspector, Nashik Road Police Station, Nashik City addressed to the Court. He has requested the trial Court to handover the disputed documents and specimen hand writing. Learned Magistrate again rejected that request. If the investigating officer has send that samples of thumb impression and signatures to the hand writing expert, it needs to be seen whether the expert has examined them or not. It is true that the expert has given evidence. The Petitioner to produce its copies.

¶23

Stand over to 14.08.2025 .

¶24

(S. M. MODAK, J.)

¶25

2 of 2

¶26

Anand

Vitthal Punjaji Pawar (Deceased) through Its Legal Heir Mangesh Vitthalrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Punjaji Pawar (Deceased) through Its Legal Heir Mangesh Vitthalrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krishnan Chandran @ Kannan vs Shivkumar Ganesh (Petitioner) and K. Chandran (Deceased)

Ashapura Housing Private Limited vs Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Madhuri Rajendra Kulkarni vs the State of Maharashtra

Shubham Chsl Thr Its Hon. Secretary/Chairman vs M/S. N.R. Corporation and Ors.

Sayarimal M. Jain vs Sushila Ishwarlal Bhatt and Ors.

Mahesh @ Sagar Vijay Zurunge and Anr. vs Kalavati Shashikant Phule and Ors.