Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1830 (RAJ)

Rajesh Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2018-09-04

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying therein that the order dated 3.2.2018 passed by court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa, whereby the said Court refused to send the cheque, in question to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur, be set aside. It is further prayed that the order dated 17.5.2018 passed by the revisional court below whereby order dated 3.2.2018 was affirmed be also set aside. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has admitted the signatures but he denied writing on the cheque. 3. Counsel further contends that the petitioner-accused filed an application praying that the cheque, in question be sent to the handwriting expert at State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur for comparison of the handwriting. 4. This Court on numerous occasions has held that working of FSL cannot be choked by sending the cheques for comparison, as FSL at Rajasthan is not having adequate infrastructure to give opinion in rape and murder cases. This Court in the case of Kanhiyalal Gujjar vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., SBCRLMP No. 423/2018 decided on 7.3.2018, passed the following order:- "Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is civil in nature. It is common knowledge that the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur is heavily over burdened with the reports to be submitted in the rape and murder cases. The reports in murder and rape cases are not being presented by the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur due to lack of infrastructure. In case, the cheque, in question in a cases arising out of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, are sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur its working shall be chocked forever. Thus, no ground for interference is made out. However, the petitioners, if so advised, may examine private handwriting expert as defence witness, at their own cost, during the course of the trial." 5. In the light of the order passed in the case of Kanhiyalal Gujjar (supra), no ground is made to cause interference in the present petition. However, it is ordered that the petitioner if so advised, may examine private Handwriting Expert as defence witness at his own cost during the course of trial. In the light of the order passed in the case of Kanhiyalal Gujjar (supra), no ground is made to cause interference in the present petition. However, it is ordered that the petitioner if so advised, may examine private Handwriting Expert as defence witness at his own cost during the course of trial. This Court has no doubt that in case such an application is filed by the petitioner, the trial court for ends of justice shall allow the same. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of.