Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 309 (UTT)

G. L. Agro Tarai Jaspur v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-08-20

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
Judgment : 1. Since factual matrix of the criminal complaint cases, in all these applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is the same, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment and order, for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2) The applicants are facing trial in different criminal complaint cases for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. These criminal complaint cases were filed by the complainant against the applicants in the court of I Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. Complainant’s evidence under Section 254 of Cr.P.C. was closed. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. At that stage, separate applications were moved on behalf of the accused (applicants herein) to refer the disputed cheque(s) to Forensic Science Laboratory (for short ‘FSL’), Dehradun. It was the submission of accused, before the trial court, that his signatures on the cheque(s) may be send to FSL for examination. Accused denied the signatures and, therefore, wanted his signatures on the questioned document send to FSL for comparison with his admitted signatures. Such request, made on behalf of the accused, was not acceded to by the trial court, vide order dated 08.03.2013. Criminal revisions were preferred on behalf of the accused, which were decided by learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, vide order dated 17.07.2014. Criminal revisions were also dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, present applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are moved on behalf of the applicants. 3) First and foremost, when mandatory legal notices were sent by the complainant to the applicants, they did not reply that the cheque(s) did not contain his (or their) signatures. In other words, it was not disclosed to the complainant that the cheque(s) did not contain the signatures of authorized signatory. When the statement of the accused was taken, nothing was stated before the trial court in this behalf under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. 4) When PW1 was cross-examined, a suggestion was given on behalf of the applicants that the cheque(s) were so issued on behalf of the applicants, only as a security, which contained the signatures of the applicants. In other words, a suggestion was given to PW1 that a blank cheque containing the signatures of the applicants was given to PW1 as security. Thus, the applicants admitted their signatures on the cheque(s) in question. In other words, a suggestion was given to PW1 that a blank cheque containing the signatures of the applicants was given to PW1 as security. Thus, the applicants admitted their signatures on the cheque(s) in question. The idea struck to the applicants, for the first time, after the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. At that stage, separate applications were moved for comparison of the signatures of authorized signatory on the questioned document with the signatures on admitted document, by referring the same to FSL, which were rightly dismissed by the trial court. 5) Further, the cheque(s) were dishonoured by the bank on account of ‘insufficiency of funds’. The bank did not dishonour the cheque(s) on the ground that the signatures of the accused on the cheque(s) did not match with his specimen signatures in the bank. The accused nowhere stated, before the trial court, that the cheque(s) were lost and, therefore, it is not his case that he lodged an FIR regarding loss of cheque(s). Instead of saying so, at the initial stage, the applicants raised this question at the stage of recording of statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 6) This Court, therefore, finds no illegality in the concurrent findings of two courts below. There is, therefore, no question of sending the cheque(s) to FSL for comparison of the signatures of the applicants. 7) It is provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that if the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process, unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such grounds shall be recorded by him in writing. 8) On the basis of above discussion, it is clear that the trial court, as also learned revision court, rightly refused to send the cheque for comparison to the FSL, Dehradun. No interference is called for in the same. 9) There is, yet, another aspect of the matter. If the accused wants to adduce his own evidence in defence, the trial court cannot stop him from doing so. No interference is called for in the same. 9) There is, yet, another aspect of the matter. If the accused wants to adduce his own evidence in defence, the trial court cannot stop him from doing so. For example, if the accused, in the instant case, wants to examine any private Hand Writing Expert to show that he did not append his signatures on the cheque, which was given to the complainant, such opportunity cannot be denied to the accused when he enters upon his defence. 10) It is, therefore, provided that if the accused wants to adduce his own evidence in defence, the trial court shall permit him to examine such witness. But, care should be taken to see that such opportunity does not cause delay in disposal of criminal complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for, the Legislature provides, in Sub-Section (3) of Section 143 of said Act, that every trial under this Section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six weeks from the date of filing of the complaint. 11) All the applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. thus stand disposed of.