K SURESH Vs. SECRETARY, KARNATAKA CONTACTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec. 397 of Crimial P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.2015 passed by the XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.14458/2003 issuing summons to the handwriting expert.

(2.) The petitioner is accused and respondent is the complainant before the Trial Court. The ranks of the parties before the Trial Court are retained for the sake of convenience.

(3.) The case of the respondent/complainant before Trial Court is that the he filed a private complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N.I. Act' for short). After taking cognizance, summons has been issued to the accused. The accused appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the complainant examined witnesses on his behalf and got marked Ex.P.2, the cheque in question, which is said to be issued by the accused. Thereafter, the accused filed an application before the Trial Court under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('Act' for short) for referring the cheque in question to the handwriting expert to furnish opinion regarding genuineness of the alleged signature of the accused. The same was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 06.11.2013. Accordingly, the cheque was referred to Smt. C.V. Jayadevi, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert. Then the opinion was submitted and the accused being not satisfied with the report filed by the handwriting expert, filed his objections to the expert's opinion, with a prayer to reject the same and not to examine the expert as witness and requested to re-refer the cheque to some other handwriting expert. After filing of the objections by the accused, the Trial Court passed an order on 12.06.2015 issuing summons to the expert with a direction to pay batta. The same is challenged before this Court on the ground that the Trial Court has not considered the objection filed by the accused as he did not want to examine the said witness and requested the Court to reject the opinion of the handwriting expert and to refer the same to some other expert. The same was not considered, but summons were issued to examine the expert as witness of the accused. Therefore, prayed for setting aside the same.