Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 131 (RAJ)

Mahendra Singh v. Kanti Lal

2012-01-11

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The present misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Chittorgarh, whereby, the application of the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the cheque in dispute for examination of the signatures to the hand writing expert has been rejected. 2. Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the signatures on the cheques were not of the petitioner Mahendra Singh and therefore the same should have been sent for examination to the hand writing expert. Learned counsel further submits that the return memo as issued by the bank was not on the ground that the signatures of the petitioner has been found to be different on the cheques. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in order to confuse the issues before the Trial Court, the petitioner has deliberately signed the proceedings before the Court below in Hindi, whereas, the signatures on the cheques are in English. He further submits that no suggestion has been made to the complainant in his cross-examination that the petitioner does not sign the cheque in English. Thus, he submits that the argument, which has been raised in support of the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act that the signatures are not that of the petitioner is misconceived. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and have considered the arguments advanced at bar. 5. In the opinion of this Court, when the return of the cheque of the accused was not done by the bank for the reason that the signatures are different, then there was no reason for the Trial Court to have directed the cheque to be sent for examination by the hand writing expert. That apart, the cheques in dispute bear signatures in English whereas the accused-petitioner has appended his signatures in the proceedings before the Court below in hindi. Thus there exist no standard signatures of the petitioner on the Trial Court's record for sending the same for comparison with the signatures on the cheques. 6. According, the learned Magistrate has rightly refused the application filed by the petitioner accused under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the cheque for examination of the signatures to the hand writing expert. 6. According, the learned Magistrate has rightly refused the application filed by the petitioner accused under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the cheque for examination of the signatures to the hand writing expert. If at all the petitioner wishes to dispute his signatures on the cheques, then, he is always at liberty to summon his banker along with the account opening form for proving his defence regarding difference in signatures. 7. Resultantly, the misc. petition being bereft of force is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands disposed of. The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the case.Petition dismissed. *******