Bombay High Court
RAIGONDA ALIAS RAYAPPA MALKARI BADAMIversusRAHUL SHAHAJIRAO KODAG AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- NITIN B SURYAWANSHI
Holding
The appellate court's rejection of the application was correct and no illegality or jurisdictional error was committed.
Summary
The petitioner, Raigonda Alias Rayappa Malkari Badami, challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, which had rejected his application to have a disputed cheque examined by a handwriting expert. The petitioner alleged differences in the accused's signature and raised the issue for the first time in an appeal filed in 2017, eight years after the original trial. The High Court noted that the petitioner had not denied his signature on the cheque during trial and that the claim of a blank cheque obtained by threat was not supported by his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. The Court held that the appellate court correctly rejected the application and that no illegality or jurisdictional error was evident. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellate court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application to send the disputed cheque for handwriting expert analysis.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313
Subjects
- handwriting expert
- cheque dispute
- Section 313 CrPC
- criminal appeal
- writ petition
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
1
36-WP-25-2026 (CR).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
36 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 25 OF 2026
Raigonda Alias Rayappa Malkari Badami ...Petitioner
Vs.
Rahul Shahajirao Kodag And Others ...Respondents
...
Mr. Gajanan M Savagave a/w Parswi Deodhar, Mr. Prashant Bandgar,
Mr. Giridhar Koli Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. P. P. Deokar APP for the State.
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.
DATE : 28th JANUARY 2026.
P.C.
IRESH
MASHAL 1. This petition challenges the order passed by learned
Digitally
signed by
IRESH
MASHAL
Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli below Exhibit 40 in Criminal
Date:
2026.01.28
19:07:01
+0530
Appeal No. 76 of 2017 thereby rejecting the application filed by the
petitioner for sending the disputed cheque for the opinion of hand
writing expert as there is difference in the signature of the accused, as
well as Form No. 29, 30, 35 at Exhibit 45, pursis at Exhibit 51,
acknowledgment at Exhibit 24 and appeal memo.
2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. Perused the
grounds raised in the Writ Petition and the impugned order.
3. It appears that for the first time, the said contention is
raised by the petitioner in the appeal. During cross-examination of
Iresh
2
36-WP-25-2026 (CR).DOC
C.W. No. 1, a suggestion was given to him by the advocate of the
petitioner that the complainant obtained blank cheque from accused
by threatening him. Non signing of the blank cheque is also not stated
by the petitioner while recording his statement under Section 313 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. During the trial, the petitioner has
not denied signature on cheque in question. The fact remains that the
appeal is filed in the year 2017 and after lapse of eight years, the
application appears to be filed to protract the appeal.
4. The Appellate Court has rightly rejected the application by
the petitioner by assigning cogent reasons. No illegality or
jurisdictional error is committed by the Appellate Court while
rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.
5. Writ Petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
Iresh
Checking your session…