Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1331 (RAJ)

Chatar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-07-10

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Shri Rakesh Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 23.9.2008 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara in Criminal Case No. 471 of 2005 whereby the application filed by petitioner to send the disputed cheque for examination by the handwriting expert was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the cheque in issue was given to Shri Sunder Lal Mandawas and that the petitioner has misused the cheque in connivance of Shri Sunder Lal Mandawa. In support of his arguments, Shri Rakesh Sinha has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar, (2008) 5 SCC 633 = 2008 (1) NH 621(SC) . 3. It will be mentioned here that the cross-examination of the complainant has been placed on record. As per the cross-examination the accused has himself suggested to the complainant that the dates and the name of the holder of the cheque were filled by the accused in presence of the complainant. The signatures of the complainant on the cheque have not been disputed. The certified copy of the application under Section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking the examination of the cheque by the handwriting expert has also been placed on record. A reading of the application disclosed that the only prayer in the said application is as regards the examination of handwriting of the name of the complainant and the date mentioned in the cheque there is no prayer as regards the age of the writings. The issue in T. Nagappa's case was based on the prayer that the age of the writing was sought to be ascertained which is not the objection of the petitioner before the learned Trial Court. 4. In this view of the matter the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T. Nagappa's case does not help the petitioner in any manner. The other judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of G. Someshwar Rao v. Samineni Nageshwar Rao & Anr , in which also the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the judgment of Kalyani Bhaskar and T. Nagappa permitted the accused to have the cheque examined by his own expert. This is apparently not the prayer of the accused in the present application. 5. This is apparently not the prayer of the accused in the present application. 5. In this view of the matter and looking to the case of the accused, this Court is of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner passed on 23.9.2008. Not only this, the said order was challenged in a revision and the Revisional Court also maintained the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Thus this petition is nothing but an attempt to challenge the order of the learned Magistrate by way of a second revision in the garb of a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code which is barred. 6. In these circumstances the petition is devoid of any force and is hereby dismissed. Any observations made in this order shall not be considered to be affecting or prejudicing the trial of the case.Petition dismissed. *******