JUDGEMENT Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned Counsels for the Petitioner and the State. 2. The Petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated, 1st June, 2010 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Ill, Madhubani, in Criminal Revision No. 371 of 2008, whereby while dismissing the revision application of the Petitioner it was held that there was no illegality and irregularity in the order of the Trial Court dated, 8th May, 2008 passed in Trial No. 717 of 2008 rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for examination of the admitted signature of the vendor of the sale deed in question i.e. Kailash Yadav with his admitted signature available on the admitted documents in the case. It further held that there did not arise any justification for interference in the matter since the remand order in the Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2000 filed by the Petitioner against his conviction was confined only to removing the discrepancy in the date of occurrence in the charge and the examination of Petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the matter was remanded back by the Appellate Court by its order dated, 26th September, 2003 in Cr. Appeal No. 337 of 2000 as contained in Annexure-2 for fresh decision and recording the statement of the Petitioner under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with law and if necessary charge should also be amended for the same extent. It is further submitted that for arriving at a correct decision the request of the Petitioner as per its petition dated, 5th February, 2008 that the admitted signatures of the Complainant be sent to the Government Hand-writing Expert for examination and opinion, should have been allowed, however the same was rejected without any valid justification and the same was affirmed by the Revisional Court as per its order dated, 1st June, 2010 in Criminal Revision No. 371 of 2008/138 of 2009 as contained in Annexure-5. 4. 4. Learned Counsel for the State submits that on perusal of the order dated, 8th May, 2008 as contained in Annexure-3 it would appear that while considering the application of the Petitioner the Court below had taken into consideration all aspects of the matter including the order of the Appellate Court as contained in Annexure-2 that on account of certain discrepancy in the date of occurrence in the charge and the examination of the Petitioner under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure the matter was remanded and on remand the same was rectified, the charge was also amended. The Petitioner was again examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure as also the fact that the witnesses who were already examined earlier were cross-examined and discharged. 5. As regards sending the admitted signature of the Complainant to a Government Hand-writing Expert, it is submitted on behalf of the State that this aspect was also considered and it was found that the signature of the Complainant was already examined by a Hand-writing Expert with the other admitted signature of the Complainant on the registration receipt. The expert was also examined as PW. 5 and later cross examined. In the above circumstances, the prayer of the Petitioner was not allowed. Considering this aspect of the matter the revision preferred by the Petitioner was also found being devoid of any merit and the same was rejected as per the order dated, 1st June, 2010 as contained in Annexure-5, as such, this writ application has no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings, it appears that the basic facts are not in dispute. However, the prayer of the Petitioner was that when the matter was remanded back the Petitioner being an Accused had filed an application that the disputed signature of the Complainant deserves to be examined by a Government Hand-writing Expert ought to have been allowed. On perusal of the orders as contained in Annexures 3 and 5, it appears that the disputed signature of the Complainant was already examined by a Hand-writing Expert and a report to that effect was also submitted and the said Expert was also examined and cross examined. On perusal of the orders as contained in Annexures 3 and 5, it appears that the disputed signature of the Complainant was already examined by a Hand-writing Expert and a report to that effect was also submitted and the said Expert was also examined and cross examined. It further appears that the Petitioner at that stage had no grievance and had no objection or did not file any petition for further examination of the disputed signature of the Complainant, in the above circumstances, the Court below did not allow the prayer of the Petitioner for second examination of the admitted signatures of the Complainant second time with his disputed signature. 7. In view of the above discussions and the reasons, I do not find any error in the orders as contained in Annexures 3 and 5. Consequently, the writ application being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.