TARABAI BALKRISHNA PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner is the accused in a trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, initiated at the instance of the respondent No.2 Finance Company. She is invoking the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in challenging the order passed by the learned trial Judge on her Application (Exhibit-65) thereby refusing to send the cheque in question seeking opinion of an handwriting expert.

(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been denying the fact of issuance of the cheque. It is her specific stand in her examination-in-chief. Apparently, there is a difference in the ink as well as language in which the contents of the cheque have been filled and the signature of the drawer appearing thereon. He would further point out that even the witness for the respondent No.2 complainant has admitted this fact and it should have been referred to the Handwriting Expert seeking opinion.