2015 (12) TMI 1878

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e to substantiate the defence. In that view of the matter, there are no case for interference under the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court is made out. Criminal writ petition dismissed.
C.V. Bhadang, J. For the Appellant: Shailesh Redkar, Advocate For the Respondent: John A. Lobo, Advocate JUDGMENT C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Lobo, learned Counsel waives service for the respondent No. 1. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. All these petitions involve common and connected questions of law and fact. They are between the same parties. As such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The petitioner is a complainant in three different cases filed against the respondent No .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lication came to be filed, for referring the subject cheques for opinion of the handwriting expert. That application has been allowed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 27.04.2015. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. I have heard Mr. Redkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Lobo, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. I have perused the impugned order, as passed. 7. It is submitted by Mr. Redkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that two successive applications were not permissible. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of G. Someshwar Rao v. Samineni Nageshwar Rao and Another, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 677. It is ne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uccessive applications are concerned, it appears that the first application filed by the respondent No. 1 was not rejected on merits but, it was rejected on the ground that it was premature, in as much as the petitioner/complainant was yet to begin his evidence. In the case of G. Someshwar Rao (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has inter-alia held in para 14 that the second application was intended to delay the disposal of the matter. Not only that, it has been further found that the accused could have examined his own expert and he can still do so and the Court can exercise its jurisdiction if it thinks fit and proper, in terms of Section 73 of the Evidence Act. It can thus be seen, that it was found that the second applications was file .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X