Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 158 (RAJ)

Gopal Joshi v. State of Rajasthan

2014-01-10

VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition is directed against the order dated 14th November, 2013 passed by the revisional court, upholding the order dated 31st August, 2013 passed by the trial Court, declining the application filed under Section filed under Section 45 read with Section 73 of Evidence Act, 1872 with a prayer for seeking opinion of hand writing expert with reference to cheque in dispute, being subject matter of proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short herein after as the 'Act of 1881'). 2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-complainant initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the course of cross examination the complainant himself deposed that the cheque in dispute was completely filled, when it was handed over to the complainant. Moreover, the accused affixed his signatures in his presence. It is in backdrop of this statement of the complainant, the petitioner filed an application under Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with a prayer to seek opinion of the hand writing expert with regard to hand writing and age of ink, on the disputed cheque which has been dishonoured. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the transaction is of civil nature and an FIR No.410/2010 was also lodged against the petitioner on which a negative final report was submitted by the Governmental Enforcement Agency. It is further contended that since the transaction dates back to the year 2002 and therefore, the truth could surface only after determination of the age of ink and the opinion of the hand writing expert with reference to the signatures as well. 4. It is not in dispute that the proceedings in the instant case had hand have been pending since 2010 and the matter was fixed for cross-examination of the respondent-complainant on 2nd May, 2011, 6th July, 2011, 1st August, 2011, 25th September, 2011, 15th November, 2011, 23.12.2011, 15.2.2012, 28th March, 2012, and 7th May, 2012. However, the matter was deferred for one or the other reason attributable to the petitioner and ultimately the cross-examination was concluded after May, 2012. Thereafter, statements of DW/1 and DW/2 were recorded and the petitioner closed his evidence. The matter was posted for final arguments to 24th June, 2013 and 28th June, 2013. However, the matter was deferred for one or the other reason attributable to the petitioner and ultimately the cross-examination was concluded after May, 2012. Thereafter, statements of DW/1 and DW/2 were recorded and the petitioner closed his evidence. The matter was posted for final arguments to 24th June, 2013 and 28th June, 2013. The application under Section 45 read Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was preferred on 2nd July, 2013. Thus, the petitioner delayed the matter and the application was yet another attempt to further delay the matter. The learned courts below have also specifically recorded a finding that the petitioner after having admitted his signatures on the cheque and the entries made therein, there appears to be no legally sustainable reason in favour of the petitioner to sustain the application preferred with a prayer for seeking opinion of hand writing expert. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the materials available on record as well as the reasons detailed out by the learned courts below, I do not find any illegality or error, calling for interference by this Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. In the result, the misc. petition is devoid of any substance and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.Ordered accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******