L T JAYARAMU Vs. KUM VIDYA T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent in detail. Perused the records.

(2.) The records disclose that the respondent filed a private complaint in PCR.No.18458/2016 against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of N.I. Act alleging the issuance of a cheque bearing No.863005 dated 12.7.2016 for Rs.20,00,000/- drawn on M/s. Canara Bank, Girinagar Branch, Bengaluru, which came to be dishonoured with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient". The complainant after duly complying all the requirements under Section 138 of N.I. Act i.e., by issuing notice to the petitioner and thereafter, within time lodged a complaint. The accused by virtue of the summons appeared before the Court and contested the proceedings. Of course, the notice issued by the complainant has not been replied by the accused. However, he has come up with a specific defence during the course of evidence before the Court below that, he has not issued any cheque in favour of the complainant and that, the said cheque was subjected to theft and the signature found on the cheque was not that of the accused.

(3.) Having taken that defence and after conclusion of the evidence, it appears the petitioner has made an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking indulgence of the Court to refer the said cheque to handwriting expert, in order to ascertain the genuineness of the signature on the disputed cheque. The said application was seriously contested by the complainant by contending various circumstances, as to how the Court has to believe that the said cheque bears the signature of the complainant. The complainant's counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and requested the Court to compare the admitted signatures of the accused on the various documents with that of the disputed signature on the cheque. The said application was heard and the learned Magistrate by giving reasons has dismissed the said application vide order dated 14.09.2017 relying upon various decisions cited by both the parties. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Court and thereafter withdrawn the same and filed this petition before this Court. Perhaps the petitioner has felt that the revision petition was not maintainable in view of the bar contained under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. Be that as it may, the said remedy was also exhausted and the petitioner is before this Court virtually challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate.