VIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is facing trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the trial court. In the course of trial, he moved an application for summoning handwriting expert, which was dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, vide order dated 13.05.2016. Aggrieved against the same, applicant preferred a criminal revision, which was also dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ramnagar, vide order dated 01.07.2015. The order passed by learned trial court was affirmed. Hence, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Admittedly, the cheque issued by the accusedapplicant was dishonoured. Although, it is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the same was not issued to the complainant against any enforceable debt, but that is not the issue before this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the cheque was not filled up by the applicant and has been filled up by the complainant. Therefore, he wanted that the handwriting on the cheque be compared with the handwriting of the person concerned. The signatures of the accused-applicant on the cheque are admitted.

(3.) In this view of the matter, learned trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the application of the applicant for comparison of handwriting. Learned revisional court has observed that the cheque was, undoubtedly, dishonoured. Such an application was moved only after the statement of the accused-applicant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement under Section 251 Cr.P.C. as well as in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused had admitted giving two blank cheques, signed by him, to the complainant. The revisional court, taking clue from Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has observed that the accusedapplicant cannot be given any benefit for taking such a plea. Learned revisional court, therefore, aptly remarked that there is no question of comparing the handwriting of the person concerned with the handwriting on the questioned document. There is no infirmity in the orders impugned.