: ORDER :

2. Heard Sri Sharad V.Magadum, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The respondent remained absent in-spite of service of notice.

5. It is stated that, accordingly, the Trial Court forwarded the disputed Cheque to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru for analysis. The Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru addressed a letter to the Trial Court as per Annexure-C which is dated 23.03.2021 stating that, there is acute shortage of staff and there are lot of cases pending for examination in Questioned Document Section. Therefore, the document was returned back as the Laboratory is temporarily deferred examination of the documents till the pendency is reduced to minimum level.

6. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application as per Annexure-D dated 18.09.2021 seeking to refer the disputed Cheque to one Mr.V.Rambabu of Hydarabad for examination. The said application was came to be rejected vide order dated 18.09.2021. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to set aside the said order passed by the Trial Court and to allow the application filed under Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Evidence Act and to refer the disputed cheque to the private handwriting expert.

7. It is not in dispute that, the earlier criminal petition was allowed by the coordinate Bench of this Court directing to refer the disputed Cheque for examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru, which was returned by the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory for the reasons stated above. Even though the petitioner filed an application under Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the application lacks details regarding the competency of Sri V.Rambabu referred to therein. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the application, no details regarding the so called expertise is forthcoming. However, the impugned order dated 18.09.2021 rejecting the said application reads as under:

09-2021=

8. Therefore it is clear that, the Trial Court has not rejected the application on the ground that there are no required details regarding competency of the person named in the application, but on the ground that the case is already posted for arguments and the application was filed at a belated stage.

9. The Trial Court has ignored the fact that, the earlier order rejecting referring of the disputed Cheque for State Forensic Science Laboratory, was set aside by this Court and thereafter the Cheque in question was referred for analysis by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru. However, the same was returned for the reasons stated above. Therefore even though the matter is listed for argument, an opportunity is to be given to the petitioner to take appropriate steps for referring the Cheque in question to any private laboratory having considerable standing.

10. The order sheet dated 10.05.2021 refers the letter written by the Director of SFSL, Bengaluru returning the document without examination and to defer the said examination. On 18.09.2021, the application for referring the document to Sri V.Rambabu was filed and on the same day the application was came to be rejected. Therefore I do find considerable force in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the opportunity was given to the accused to refer the disputed cheque for analysis by the forensic lab, the same cannot be taken away only on the ground of delay in filing the application. Hence, I deem it proper to set aside the impugned order dated

18.09.2021.

11. At the same time, the application which lacks details regarding the expert whom the petitioner/ accused wants to be appointed as a handwriting expert to verify/analyze the Cheque in question cannot be considered once again and therefore liberty is reserved with the petitioner to file a proper application with all necessary details regarding the capability of the expert in analyzing the disputed Cheque and period required for such analysis