Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1100 (RAJ)

Preetam Singh Gehlot v. State of Rajasthan

2016-08-01

P.K.LOHRA

body2016
ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the impugned order dated 18.01.2016 passed by Additional Session Judge No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned revisional Court'), whereby learned revisional Court has upheld the order dated 31.10.2015 passed by Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 9 Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned trial Court'). 2. The learned trial Court, on a complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'Act') made on behalf of respondent, proceeded with trial against the petitioner. At the threshold cognizance was taken against the petitioner and then substance of accusation was made out to him. The respondent-complainant closed his evidence on 07.10.2013 and thereafter statements of accused-petitioner were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 13.06.2014. After recording statements of the accused-petitioner, he was granted umpteen opportunities to produce his evidence in defence but no evidence was produced by him, therefor, the learned trial Court proceeded to close defence evidence by its order dated 21.05.2015. Faced with this situation, the petitioner laid an application before the learned trial Court under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for sending the disputed cheque for FSL examination, as according to the petitioner, his signatures on the cheque are forged one. 3. The learned trial Court, after considering the submissions made by both the parties, declined the prayer by its order dated 31.10.2015. Learned trial Court has also found that prima facie, genuineness of signatures can also be ascertain by the Court itself, and therefore, at such a belated stage, it is not desirable to send the cheque for FSL examination. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner approached the learned revisional Court and before the learned revisional Court also, effort made by the petitioner proved abortive. Learned revisional Court, after examining the matter and considering the fact that matter is prolonged by the petitioner without any rhyme and reason, rejected the revision petition by upholding the order of learned trial Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as order passed by the learned trial Court. 6. Learned revisional Court, after examining the matter and considering the fact that matter is prolonged by the petitioner without any rhyme and reason, rejected the revision petition by upholding the order of learned trial Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as order passed by the learned trial Court. 6. Upon perusal of the impugned order and in the background of peculiar facts and circumstances of instant case, in my opinion, both the Courts have not committed any menifest error of law warranting interference in exercise of inherent powers of this Court. There is apparently no reason in the instant case to interfere with the impugned order. The order impugned has not occasioned miscarriage of justice or otherwise it is necessary to interfere in the matter to secure the ends of justice. 7. Resultantly, the petition fails and same is hereby dismissed.