Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 374 (RAJ)

Shobha Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2014-02-04

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.09.2013 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.1, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in case No.734/2009. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Kana Ram filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act before the trial court. The statements of the complainant as well as his witnesses were recorded and the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded on 04.04.2013, thereafter though the petitioner was provided four opportunities to produce evidence in defence, no evidence was produced by her and the matter was fixed for final hearing on 26.07.2013, 23.08.2013 and 05.09.2013. The counsel for the petitioner was granted last opportunity to finally argue the matter, however, on 24.09.2013, the petitioner had moved an application before the trial court with a prayer that the cheque in question may be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination while claiming that though the signatures on the cheque in question are her but the other writings on the cheque are not scribed by her. 3. The trial court, after considering the arguments of the rival parties, has dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner, while observing that since the petitioner has admitted her signature on the cheque in question and has also not filed any reply to the notice sent to her by the complainant, it is not necessary to send the cheque to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examining the hand writing. The trial court has also observed that the application has filed by the petitioner with delay also. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 26.09.2013 while arguing that the petitioner is entitled for opportunity to lead her defence, however, the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner solely on the ground of delay. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon decision of this Court in Hanuman Sahay Sharma v. Manish Dhamani reported in 2012(4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.)1910, and has prayed that the order dated 26.09.2013 may be quashed and set aside and the trial court may be directed to send the cheque in question for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order. 7. The trial court has specifically observed that the petitioner has admitted the signature upon the cheque in question to be of herself and has nowhere pleaded that the other writings on the cheque were not scribed by her. The trial court has also observed that when the matter was fixed for final hearing from quite long time, there was no reason to send the cheque for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has never pleaded, at any point of time, that except the signature, other writings scribed on the cheque in question are not of her. It is also not in dispute that the matter was fixed for final arguments after giving several opportunities to the counsel for the petitioner to produce evidence in defence and the counsel for the petitioner had moved the application before the trial court on the day when the matter was fixed for final arguments. 9. The facts of the case of Hanuman Sahay Sharma (supra) are quite distinguishable from the facts of this case because in that case the matter was not fixed for final arguments. 10. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Hence, there is no force in this Criminal Misc. Petitioner and the same is hereby dismissed. Petition Dismissed.