Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 93 (MP)

Rahul Pandey v. Rahul Shukla

2018-01-22

SUSHIL KUMAR PALO

body2018
ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 of the CrPC has been filed to assail order dated 9.3.2016, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandla in Criminal Revision No. 15/2016, wherein the order dated 11.2.2016, passed by learned JMFC, Mandla in Criminal Case No. 333/2015, has been reversed and application under section 45 of the Evidence Act has been allowed. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that] the petitioner complainant filed a criminal complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Against the respondent/accused. The respondent/accused mooved an appliction under section 45 of the Evidence Act for examining the handwriting expert with regard to the writings in the cheque, though the signature of the cheque has been admitted by the respondent accused. 3. Learned JMFC dismissed the application stating that the signature on the cheque has been admitted. Hence, hadnwriting in other entries of the cheque are of no inportance. The respondent accused filed Criminal Revision No. 14/2016, which was dicided on 9.3.2016, in which the order passed by learned JMFC has been set aside and it has been directed to examine the handwriting expert subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-. 4. The petitioner assail the same on the ground that signature on the cheque by the respondent is admitted. Therefore, it is not necessary that entireis in the cheque should be filled up by the signatory of the cheque. Entries in the cheque by another person does not disentitle the complainant to enchash the cheque. Hence, the order is bad in the eye of law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent accused opposing the contentions submitted that presumption in favour of the complainat is rebuttable. Therefore, the accused has devery right to call handwriting expert in support of his defence. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Abhishek v. Ramesh, [ 2012(II) MPWN 13 = 2012(2) MPLJ 472 ]. 6. In the case of Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam, [ (2007)2 SCC 258 ] signature and handwriting in the cheque was denied. Therefore, the apex Court held that the accused cannot be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her evidence. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that when the signature of the respondent is admitted, nothing remains to be examined. Therefore, the apex Court held that the accused cannot be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her evidence. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that when the signature of the respondent is admitted, nothing remains to be examined. Entries in the cheque are not necessarily to be filled by the person who has signed the cheque. The same can be filled by any one, in Government offices, the same can be filled by the staff of the signatory. 8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. the impugned order dated 9.3.2016 is set aside. Ashok Lalwani for petitioner; Durgesh Kumar Singrore for respondent.