JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against the order passed by Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate No. l Lachhmangarh on July 33, 1983 in criminal case No. 223/77, State v. Ram Avtar allowing the State non-petitioner to produce the handwriting expert at the fag end of the trial. 2. Facts giving rise to this case are that on March II, 1977 a complaint was filed by one Mallu before the Judicial Magistrate, Lachhmangarh alleging that the complainant is an illiterate person living in village Raghunath Bas. His allegation was that Ram Avtar accused has devoured the Principal amount for Ks. 1000/-and Rs. 800/-as interest in his capacity as Manager of Lachhmangarh Sahkari Samiti (LSS). According to him his brother had never been a member of the Society and never signed the register. He neither put his thumb impressions on the bond nor gave any surety. He had also not drawn any loan but the accused by doing forgeries has devoured the entire amount. He is alleged to have lodged a report at Police Station but nothing was done hence the complaint was filed. The learned Magistrate on the receipt of the complaint sent the same to the Police Station Lachhmangarh for investigating the same under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. The Police thereupon registered the case as crime No. 52 of 1977 for offence under Sections 406 and 465 IPC and investigated the case. After investigating the case the Police submitted a charge sheet against the accused Ram Avtar in the aforesaid court for offence under Sections 406 & 464 IPC. Along with the charge-sheet the Police filed the complaint, the FIR,the seizure memo of the record, the notice of the Lachhmangarh Sahkari Samiti, the recovery of the note, the arrest memo and the statements under Section 161 Cr P.C. A perusal of the charge-sheet does not disclose that any effort was ever made by the investigating officer to verify the correctness of the complaint when the Police had the availability of forensic science laboratory at its disposal. A very sketchy investigation was carried out and the charge sheet was submitted. A very sketchy investigation was carried out and the charge sheet was submitted. Even efforts were not made to verify as to who had made the interpolations on notice Ex.P 4 when the charge sheet were framed against the accused for offence under Sections 465 and 409 IPC and the statements of the witnesses were recorded, and it was brought out on record that in 1972 also Mallu had filed a first information report against the accused which is Ex.D 1 and wherein the Police after investigation gave a final report which was accepted. It has also been admitted by Mallu in his statement that several cases under Section 420 IPC are going on against him. Even Chand Khan did not give a positive statement as to whether he had put in his thumb impression or not on the documents. 3. The entire evidence was over by February, 18, 1983 and the case was fixed for final arguments on March 9, 1983. On this date the A.P.P. was not prepared with the case and wanted further time for argument's and the case was fixed for March 31, 1983. On this date again arguments could not be completed because A.P.P. was not available and the case was fixed for April 6, 1983. On April 8, 1983 again the A.P.P. had not prepared the case and wanted time. Arguments were not heard on April 16, 1983, May 16, 1983, June 24, 1983 and it was on July 19, 1983 that an application was moved by the A.P.P. that he wanted the hand writings of the accused to be taken as specimen for getting them compared by the handwriting expert and this application of the A.P.P. was allowed on July 30, 1983 against which this petition had been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri R.P. Goyal placing reliance on The State of Rajasthan v. Daulatram, AIR 1980 SC 1314 has stated that the impugned order of the Magistrate must be quashed as the same ientamounts to an abuse of the process of the court as from the statement Mallu, it ex-facie appears that complaint has been filed malafide and his own conduct is such on which court should not place any reliance. Besides this, it is further submitted that even Chand Khan is unable to say definitely whether he had put in thumb impressions or not, on disputed documents. Besides this, it is further submitted that even Chand Khan is unable to say definitely whether he had put in thumb impressions or not, on disputed documents. On the other hand the learned Government Advocate placing reliance on Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 Criminal Law Journal 2201 has stated that since the ocular evidence is lacking in the case, it is essential to lead the evidence of a Handwriting Expert and Finger print Expert for the proving the case. 5. Before I proceed with the point in the case I would like to express that the conduct of the presiding officer in the case had been very strange from January 2, 1978 till March 28, 1981 practically for three years the case had been adjourned for hearing arguments on charge and it was on May 2, 1981 that the charge was framed when the charge sheet had been submitted on July 27, 1977 and after that leisurely the evidence has been recorded and as mentioned above from February 18. 1983 to July 19, 1983 for five months the case had been adjourned atleast seven times for hearing the arguments. This sort of conduct of a Magistrate in dealing with the case cannot but be deprecated. In a criminal case an accused who faces the prosecution had attended the court on each date of hearing has to undergo a lot of expenditure and suffers humiliations and harassment's. The trial of a case is not meant to be a punishment to an accused. He is expected to have expeditious trial of the case and must know his fact. The very purpose of prosecuting a person at times is frustrated by such prolonging the proceedings. 6. So far as accepting the application of the accused at the fag end of the trial is concerned, suffice it to say that the application ought to have been rejected, firstly on the ground of an inordinate delay and secondly because no foundation has been laid by the prosecution at any stage of the trial for the same. 6. So far as accepting the application of the accused at the fag end of the trial is concerned, suffice it to say that the application ought to have been rejected, firstly on the ground of an inordinate delay and secondly because no foundation has been laid by the prosecution at any stage of the trial for the same. It appears from the record of the case that Mallu and accused are daggers drawn and former had been moving several applications for several purposes at different times duly countersigned by the A P.P. When the prosecution plays in the hands of private complaint in a state challan, it becomes essential for the court to see that the prosecution is making genuine efforts and is not merely playing in hands of complainant. It is true that court has powers to call for evidence at any stage of the trial but not for the purposes of filling up lacunas of the prosecution much less when no foundation had been laid earlier in the statements of any of the witnesses. 7. So far as the merits of the case are concerned I do not want to express any opinion at this stage since the trial of the case is pending. But suffice to say that after 8 years of the complaint when the entire trial is over such an application cannot be allowed to fill in the lacuna in the prosecution case if there is any. Besides this, the application moved by the A.P.P. is also absolutely vague. This application not only lacks in details but also does not specify the documents which had to be compared in the case. In a case like the present in my considered opinion it was obligatory on the investigating officer to have before submitting the charge sheet ought to have taken specimen thumb impressions of the complainant, the accused Mallu and others and should have also ensured that the complaint is not false person particularly in view of the fact that Mallu had filed a similar complaint against the accused in 1972 which resulted in a final report. There are several other grounds on which this order is not tenable but I do not want to mention them for the reasons mentioned above, namely, the pendency of the trial. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. There are several other grounds on which this order is not tenable but I do not want to mention them for the reasons mentioned above, namely, the pendency of the trial. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. The order, dated July 30, 1983 passed by Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Lachmangarh is quashed and the case is sent back to the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Lachhmangarh with the direction that he should hear the arguments and decide the case within a period of three months. The record of the case must be remitted forthwith. The counsel for the accused-petitioner is directed to inform his client to appear before the trial court on February II, 1985.Petition allowed. *******