Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1836 (RAJ)

Banwari Lal Sharma v. Babu Lal Bagda

2018-09-05

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 18.8.2018 passed by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, No.25, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur Headquater Chomu, whereby prayer of the petitioner to send the cheque in question for comparison of signatures of petitioner on the cheque with admitted signatures of the petitioner has been rejected, be set aside. 2. This case has a long drawn history. The petitioner had issued a cheque, which on presentation was returned by the Bank by informing the complainant that payment of the cheque has been stopped by the petitioner. 3. Mr. Anil Upman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner on 17.1.2018 filed an application stating therein that handwriting on the cheque ExhibitP/3 and Statement of Account Exhibit-D/1 are not in the handwriting of the petitioner. The trial court accepted the prayer and had sent the cheque in question and the Statement of Account for comparison to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (for short 'FSL'). The FSL came to the conclusion that the handwriting on the cheque including signatures and handwriting on the Statement of Account Exhibit-D/1 including signatures on Exhibit-D/1 are in one hand and both have been executed by a common author. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is nowhere proved that the handwriting on both i.e. cheque and document is of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Shish Ram Saini, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner had not disputed his signatures on the cheque at any given opportunity. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that had the accused petitioner doubted signatures on the cheque, same would have been sent for comparison. 7. To controvert, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that right from the beginning case of the petitioner is that handwriting and signatures on the cheque and statement of accounts and signatures thereupon are of one person and not of the petitioner. 8. The journey of the court is to find truth. Therefore, the court shall always make endeavour for the same. It would have been appropriate for the trial court to send signatures of the petitioner on admitted documents and on the cheque for comparison to ward off controversy to be raised in future, as the same has been raised now. 9. The journey of the court is to find truth. Therefore, the court shall always make endeavour for the same. It would have been appropriate for the trial court to send signatures of the petitioner on admitted documents and on the cheque for comparison to ward off controversy to be raised in future, as the same has been raised now. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the argument raised is nothing but a ploy to cause delay. 10. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that the bank official have not compared the signatures of the petitioner on the cheque with the specimen signature on record of the bank, as the cheque was returned for the reason that the payment was stopped by the complainant. Therefore, it will be necessary to compare the signatures of the petitioner on the cheque with his admitted signatures on the record of the bank. 11. Liberty is also granted to the complainant that if he is so advised, he can pray before the trial court to send Vakalatnama of the petitioner and affidavits filed by him in the court also for comparison. 12. It will be suffice to compare the signature on the cheque with the specimen signature of the petitioner with the bank from the account of which cheque was issued. 13. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of, by issuing following directions:- (a) That the trial court shall call the bank official for production of specimen signatures of the petitioner retained by the bank in respect of account maintained by the petitioner. (b) That the specimen signatures available with the bank shall be sent along with the cheque in question for comparison to FSL. (c) That upon prayer made by the complainant, signatures of the petitioner on the Vakalatnama and the affidavits filed in the court shall also be sent for comparison with the signatures on the cheque. (d) That the handwriting expert at FSL is directed to submit report regarding comparison of signatures on the cheque with the specimen signatures obtained from the bank and if prayed by the complainant with the documents sent, within one month from the receipt of the documents. (e) That till the report of FSL is received, proceedings in the trial court shall be kept in abeyance. (e) That till the report of FSL is received, proceedings in the trial court shall be kept in abeyance. (f) That after receipt of report from the FSL, the trial court shall complete the trial within one month thereafter. 14. As a parting note, this Court may note that in the present case, directions for comparison of the signatures by FSL have been given only because earlier petitioner had submitted report of private handwriting expert wherein handwriting of the petitioner was doubted and furthermore, the trial court in its wisdom had earlier sent the documents to FSL. So far this Court is concerned, the report of private handwriting expert in matters pertaining under 'The Negotiable Instruments Act' should have been sufficient for adjudication in the matter, after appreciation thereof by the trial court.