MOHAN LAL MANDA Vs. GANGA RAM SAKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC assailing the order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, Delhi whereby an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act dated 04.01.2013 and an application dated under Section 311 Cr.PC dated 22.11.2014 brought by the petitioners were dismissed and also order dated 12.10.2015 passed by Special Judge (NDPS) (N/E), Delhi in Revision Petition No. 18/2015.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petitions is that the respondent herein had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act on which summons were issued to the petitioner herein; that notices were framed against the petitioner, who denied the allegations and stated that the respondent/complainant had stolen the cheques and misused the same; that the matter was fixed for defence evidence and the petitioner had summoned the bank witnesses to prove that the bank account had already been closed and no transaction had been made since long; that thereafter the petitioner had summoned the bank witness of respondent's bank to examine the bank deposit slip regarding the deposit of the cheque in question but the original deposit slip were not on judicial record; that an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for calling a handwriting and finger print expert to give his expert opinion, was made; that another application under Section 311 Cr.PC for recalling the bank witness of the respondent to bring the original record was moved; that vide impunged order dated 24.02.2015, both aforesaid applications were dismissed; that the petitioner filed a Revision Petition against the said order which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.10.2015.

(3.) The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cheque was never issued by the petitioner to the respondent and the same was stolen and misused by the respondent. Learned counsel contended that opinion of the handwriting and finger print expert to prove the handwriting and signature on the cheque in question was necessarily required and the Trial Court having rejected his prayer resulted in miscarriage of justice.