Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1903 (RAJ)

Iqbal Pinjara v. State Of Rajasthan

2017-08-25

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2017
JUDGMENT ORDER Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 against the impugned order dated 28.04.2017 passed by learned Additional Session Judge No.6, Jodhpur Metropolitan passed in the Criminal Revision No.198/2017 whereby the learned revisional court has affirmed the impugned order dated 16.01.2017 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.9, Jodhpur Metropolitan passed by her in criminal misc. case No.3267/2013 on the application of the petitioner under Section 243 Cr.P.C., 1973 read with section 45, 73 of the Indian Evidence Act which was dismissed by the learned trial court. 2. The brief facts as noticed by this Court are that a complaint was filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as NI Act) against the present petitioner regarding cheque No.674480 dated 28.03.2013 for Rs. 2,50,000/-. On dishonouring of the cheque, the complaint under section 138 of NI Act was filed. During cross examination, the petitioner showed the receipt in handwriting of the respondent No.2 and claimed that the liability was not outstanding to the tune as claimed. The handwriting of the receipt was denied by the respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has claimed that such handwriting was truthful defence and thus, his application under Section 243 Cr.P.C., 1973 read with section 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act for obtaining samples of the handwriting. The application of the petitioner was dismissed on 16.01.2017 and the revisional court also dismissed the application on 28.04.2017. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of T. Nagappa vs. Y.R. Muralidhar reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2010. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent however refutes such submission and stated that the FSL at this stage of the receipts denied by him would be to prolong the present proceedings. It is also stated that the judgment of T.Nagappa (supra) is only pertaining to section 20 of the NI Act and as per the settled law, once the cheque was admitted, the contents of the cheque were established then there was no requirement of referring the matter to the experts. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of Mrs. Kalyani Baskar vs. Mrs. M.S. Sampornam reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 258. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of Mrs. Kalyani Baskar vs. Mrs. M.S. Sampornam reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 258. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as the precedent laws cited at Bar, this Court is of the opinion that though in ordinary jurisprudence, the accused would definitely have rights of defence against any examination but NI Act is a special law and herein the FSL or any other expert report ought to be called for in case only, if any dispute arose regarding signature on the negotiable instrument i.e. the cheque itself. Moreover, during the pendency of the proceedings if the application under Section 243 Cr.P.C., 1973 is allowed calling for different documents to be sent for FSL, then trial shall be prolonged which could not be intention of the special Act. 8. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present misc. petition is dismissed.