JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track) No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application for sending the cheque in dispute to a handwriting expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Lalchand, the complainant, filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of a cheque. On receiving the complaint, the learned trial court issued notices and conducted trial. Eventually vide order dated 15.02.2010, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed a criminal appeal before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Meanwhile, the petitioner received the opinion dated 09.04.2010 from a handwriting expert, Smt. Renu Kumari, who clearly opined that the entries in the cheque have been made by the complainant in his own writing. Thus, the petitioner filed an application, on 15.11.2010, before the appellate court to take the expert's opinion on record. However, the learned appellate court rejected the said application vide order dated 21.01.2011. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that at the appellate stage, he received an opinion of handwriting expert, wherein he has opined that the cheque has been written by the complainant himself. According to the petitioner, the opinion buttresses his case that the cheque is a forged one. Hence, his prayer that the cheque be sent for being examined by the FSL. 4. Mr. J.P. Gargey, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that not only should the cheque be sent to the FSL for its examination, but the opinion of the handwriting expert should also be taken on record. 5. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order. 6. The learned Judge has clearly noted the fact that although the petitioner claims that the cheque was a forged one, still he never lodged a FIR against the complainant. The learned counsel has tried to explain this anomaly by claiming that since the complainant and the petitioner are closely related, being brother-in-laws of each other, it was not possible for the petitioner to lodge a FIR against his own brother-in-law. However, the said explanation is unworthy of acceptance. The learned counsel has tried to explain this anomaly by claiming that since the complainant and the petitioner are closely related, being brother-in-laws of each other, it was not possible for the petitioner to lodge a FIR against his own brother-in-law. However, the said explanation is unworthy of acceptance. For, if the relationship were so close, there was no occasion for the complainant to lodge a criminal case against the petitioner. In case, the petitioner was convinced that the cheque was forged, he should have filed a FIR against the complainant. 7. Moreover, even during the trial, the petitioner never moved an application requesting the trial court to send the cheque to the FSL for its opinion. It is only at the appellate stage and that too with a view to linger on the appeal, that the application has been filed before the learned appellate court. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in dismissing the said application. 8. As far as his prayer that the opinion of the handwriting expert, although a private opinion, should be taken on record, the said prayer cannot be granted by this Court. Of course, the petitioner is free to move the proper application before the learned appellate court and it is for the appellate court to decide whether to take the said opinion on record or not ? 9. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal Allowed. *******