PRABODH KUMAR TEWARI Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are facing criminal prosecution in complaint case (CC 628454/2016) instituted by the respondent bank wherein accusations have been levelled against them of indulgence in certain acts of commission and omission constituting offences punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 respecting a particular cheque. It is pointed out that in answer to the notice under Sec. 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC), the first petitioner admitted that the cheque in question (Ex. CW1/2) bears his signatures but the contents were not in his hand. The second petitioner in answer to similar notice under Sec. 251 Cr. PC served on him disputed the allegation that the cheque bore his signatures, this being inconsequential in view of the admission of the other coaccused, he also disowning having anything to do with the said This is a digitally signed order.

(2.) The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/02/2024 at 18:54:59 cheque. It appears the complainant bank is also relying on a communication dtd. 26/12/2011 (Ex. PW1/A) on which signatures of a person purportedly acting as Director for Century Communication Ltd. appear. It is stated that as per the case of the complainant, the second petitioner is the signatory to the said letter which allegation is also contested by the petitioners. The complainant's evidence has been concluded, the case now being at the stage of defence evidence.

(3.) The petitioners had moved an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate seeking reference of the said questioned documents for opinion by a Government Examiner of Questioned Document regarding the authorship of the writings / signatures in dispute. The said request was resisted by the bank and declined by the Metropolitan Magistrate by the impugned order dtd. 21/2/2019. The challenge brought to the said order of the Metropolitan Magistrate is resisted by the bank before this court primarily on the submission that a presumption runs against the signatory of the cheque even if the contents were not filled in by him.