Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 887 (RAJ)

Atul Tiwari v. State of Rajasthan

2017-04-04

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition aggrieved by order dated 01.03.2017 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Ajmer, whereby, the Court rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 04.11.2016 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (Negotiable Instrument Act Cases) No.1, Ajmer vide which the Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 243 Cr.P.C., 1973. 2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the cheque in question was given by the petitioner to Abhishek Singh. Abhishek Singh has filled the cheque and has given to the complainant. The petitioner wanted to establish in his defence that entries in the cheque were made by Abhishek Singh and for that purpose, the petitioner moved an application before the Court below for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert which application was rejected by the Court. 3. It is contended that the accused has a right to defend his case. Reliance has been placed on "T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Murlidhar" 2008 (2) DCR 634. 4. I have considered the contentions and perused the statements of the petitioner given before the Court below in his defence. 5. The petitioner in his statement has mentioned that the complainant and Abhishek Singh both are jointly doing business of money lending and that he has taken money from Abhishek Singh and has not taken any money from the complainant and has not given any cheque to the complainant. 6. From the statement given by the complainant, it can be made out that the complainant and Abhishek Singh were doing a joint business of money lending, therefore, even if the cheque was given by the petitioner to Abhishek Singh and was filled by Abhishek Singh, the same would be within ambit of section 20 of N.I. Act. 7. In "T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Murlidhar" (supra), the apex Court held that the accused has a right to defend his case and the disputed signature can be sent to the handwriting expert. 8. In the present case there is no dispute with regard to the signature as the petitioner as petitioner has admitted that the cheque bears his signature. The apex Court further held that if the accused is protracting the trial and the evidence would not be relevant, the Court can refuse permission to summon the witnesses. 9. 8. In the present case there is no dispute with regard to the signature as the petitioner as petitioner has admitted that the cheque bears his signature. The apex Court further held that if the accused is protracting the trial and the evidence would not be relevant, the Court can refuse permission to summon the witnesses. 9. In the present case, petitioner has already got himself examined as defence witness and the matter is at the stage of final arguments. At this belated stage to protract the trial, petitioner has moved the application for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert. 10. Petitioner has further availed of the remedy of revision. Second revision being barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 recourse to Section 482 can be taken only in rarest of rare case. Present case is not a case where the Court is inclined to invoke its inherent powers. 11. The misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay application also stands disposed of.