Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2250 (RAJ)

Om Prakash v. Firm Ashok Kumar Rajendra Kumar

2011-10-20

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The present misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner who is facing trial in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pilibanga in Criminal Case No.450/2006 for the offence under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner filed an application in the trial court praying that the disputed cheque on the basis of which complaint has been filed should be sent for examination to the handwriting expert as he disputes the signature on the cheque. The said application has been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 5.3.2010. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of revision which has also been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No.3, Hanumangarh vide order dated 23.12.2010 and accordingly, the present misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner praying that the cheque should be directed to be sent for examination by handwriting expert as it is essential for his defence. 3. I have perused the order impugned as well as statement of the complainant recorded at the trial. In this matter, the complaint was filed in the year 2006. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the trial court on 12.6.2007 and the defence evidence was closed on 5.11.2008. Thereafter, the accused filed a revision for reopening of his defence and acting on the revisional court's order for reopening the defence, opportunity to lead defence was given to the accused which was again completed on 17.8.2009 and thereafter, on 16.1.2010, an application was filed for sending the cheque for examination by the handwriting expert. 4. For the purpose of sending the cheque for examination by the handwriting expert, the accused specifically has to set up his case in the cross examination of the complainant when the complainant is being examined to show as to whether a dispute has been raised as regards the signature on the cheque. A perusal of the cross examination of the complainant in the present case reveals that the complainant has not been put any question in his cross examination regarding the signature on the cheque not being of the accused. A perusal of the cross examination of the complainant in the present case reveals that the complainant has not been put any question in his cross examination regarding the signature on the cheque not being of the accused. In absence of any suggestion made to the complainant in this regard that the signature on the cheque was not of the accused, now he cannot be permitted to raise a plea that the signature on the cheque should be had examined by the handwriting expert. The absence of any suggestion in this regard amounts to acquiescence on part of the accused. The accused in his defence was very much at liberty to examine the concerned bank officials for the purpose of showing that the cheque, which is subject matter of the complaint, did not bear his signature. If at all the cheque was not having the signature of the holder of the bank account (petitioner), then the same would have been dishonoured on the ground that the signature on the cheque did not tally. This is not the case in the present matter. Accordingly, it is apparent that the application which has been filed for examination of the cheque by handwriting expert, has been filed just in order to delay the proceedings in the trial. The order impugned is absolutely justified and does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. In this view of the matter, this misc. petition, being bereft of any force, is hereby dismissed. 6. Stay application also stands dismissed. 7. The trial court is directed to expedite the matter.Petition dismissed. *******