Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 337 (RAJ)

Suresh Kumar Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan

2016-02-26

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed by the petitioner while challenging the order dated 10.9.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision No. 339/2015 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. In the said revision petition, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 29.1.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, (N.I. Act Cases No. 1), Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Regular Criminal Case No. 2407/2009 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for sending the cheque to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination by the handwriting expert was rejected. 2. The proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act are pending against the petitioner before the trial court. In the said proceedings, the complainant has alleged that the petitioner had handed over him a cheque Exhibit P/3 in lieu of repayment of some loan amount and when the said cheque was presented before the concerned Bank, the same was not honoured. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since beginning, the defence of the petitioner is that though the cheque Exhibit P/3 contains the signature of the petitioner, but the amount and other entries in the cheque were not made by him. It is argued that the petitioner has also said in defence that the said cheque was stolen by one Shiv Kumar, who happened to be the relative of the complainant and Shiv Kumar handed over the said cheque to the complainant, who, after filling the cheque, submitted it in the Bank. It is submitted that if the cheque in question is sent to the handwriting expert, truth would come out whether the entries made in the cheque were made by the petitioner or not. It is further argued that the courts below have not considered the said aspect of the matter and illegally rejected the prayer of the petitioner and passed the impugned orders against the settled principles of law. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders may kindly be quashed and the trial court be directed to send the cheque Exhibit P/3 for examination by the handwriting expert of Forensic Science Laboratory. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders may kindly be quashed and the trial court be directed to send the cheque Exhibit P/3 for examination by the handwriting expert of Forensic Science Laboratory. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders, therefore, no interference is called for in this Criminal Misc. Petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 6. The trial court has observed that the complainant, in his statement recorded before the trial court, has specifically stated that the cheque Exhibit P/3 was not filled in front of him. The trial court has also observed that so far as the signature of the petitioner on the cheque Exhibit P/3 is concerned, there is no dispute about the same. The trial court has further observed that the statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded long back and thereafter 9 adjournments were granted to the petitioner to produce evidence in his defence. It is also observed that though opportunity to produce the defence evidence was granted to the petitioner at the cost of Rs.1,000/- by speaking orders, yet the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence in defence, on the contrary, he has moved this application only with intention to delay the trial of the case. 7. Having considered the reasons given by the trial court for rejecting the application of the petitioner for sending the cheque Ex.P/3 to handwriting expert, I am satisfied that the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. The revisional court has also considered the said aspect of the matter and has rightly affirmed the order passed by the trial court. 8. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this Criminal Misc. Petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.