Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1221 (RAJ)

Mukesh Kumar Gandhi v. Seema Devi

2014-05-26

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the Special Judge SC & ST (P.A.) Cases, Merta (hereinafter referred to as the 'revisional court'), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 08.01.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta City (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court'), whereby the application of the petitioner for sending the cheque in question for examination to the handwriting expert has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, before the trial court. During the pendency of the said proceedings the petitioner has moved an application with a prayer for sending the cheque in question for examination at Forensic Science Laboratory while contending that the signature on the cheque in question are not of him. 3. The trial court has rejected the said application of the petitioner while observing that the cheque in question has not been dishonored by the bank on the ground of dissimilarity in the signature of the petitioner. The trial court has also observed that the petitioner has not raised any objection regarding his signature on the cheque in question though he has received the notice sent on behalf of the complainant. The trial court is of the opinion that when the cheque in question has not been dishonored on the ground of dissimilarity in the signature there is no point in sending the same for examination to the handwriting expert. 4. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the trial court on 08.01.2013, the petitioner has preferred an revision petition, however, the same has been dismissed by the revisional court while observing that the trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the courts below have not taken into consideration the fact that the denial of sending the cheque in question for chemical examination tantamount of denial of fair trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the signature on the cheque in question is not of him, therefore, the trial court should have sent the cheque in question for examination to the handwriting expert. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the signature on the cheque in question is not of him, therefore, the trial court should have sent the cheque in question for examination to the handwriting expert. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampornam reported in (2007) 2 SCC 258 as well as by this Court in Jitendra Bansal S/o Surendra Bansal v. Gauri Shankar S/o Shri Kaniram, reported in 2009 WLC(Raj.) UC 71 . 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. 8. It is not in dispute that despite receipt of notice from the complainant the petitioner has not filed any reply of the same. It is also not in dispute that the cheque in question was returned by the bank because the petitioner has instructed the bank to stop the payment of the cheque in question and not for the reason of dissimilarity in the signature of the petitioner. 9. In Kalyani Baskar's case (supra) the bank official during the cross examination, deposed before the trial court that he has not verified the signature of the accused before returning the cheque in question. Such a situation is not present in this case as there is no evidence of this effect available on record that before returning the cheque in question, the bank has not verified the signature of the petitioner, hence, the above referred judgment is of no help. 10. In Jitendra Bansal's case (supra) accused has outrightly denied the issuance of cheque in question and, therefore, the court has ordered for examination of the cheque in question by an expert. In the present case the petitioner has not denied the issues of cheque in question. 11. In such circumstances this Court is of the opinion that when the cheque in question has not been returned by the bank on the ground of dissimilarity in the signature of the petitioner, the trial court as well as the revisional court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders, therefore, there is no force in this Criminal Misc. Petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 12. Stay petition also stands dismissed.