INNOVATIVE ENTERPRISES Vs. STEEL AND TUBES SYNDICATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the order of remand passed by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge in the appeal preferred by the accused, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the Trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) THE Court heard the submissions made on either side.

(3.) THE respondent/accused who face the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act at the hands of the appellant/complainant filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.4260 of 2005 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act praying the Trial Court to send the cheque to the handwriting expert for his opinion as to the material alteration found in the cheque. THE Trial Court dismissed the said petition. Criminal Revision 239 of 2005 was preferred by the accused, challenging such an order passed by the Trial Court. THE operative portion of the said order reads as follows: "6. I have bestowed my careful thought to the submissions made on cithcraidc. Admittedly the Revision Petitioner is facing trial for the alleged offence under Sec.138 of N.I.Act and the trial is almost over. As against the dismissal of the discharge petition, the Revision petitioner did not prefer any revision or appeal. However, he has filed a petition under sec.45 of Evidence Act to send Ex.P1 cheque to the Forensic Science Department to find out any material alteration in the date and year of cheque at the fag end of trial. However both sides conceds that it is clearly visible to the naked eye. But according to the Revision Petitioner it is material alteration and according to the Respondent there is no material alteration. Under these circumstances, coupled with the fact of absence of reply to the statutory notice and the rounding up of item No.15 in Ex.P2 during the course of trial which ought not to have been done, I am of the considered view that the trial court itself is competent to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence of the parties with regard to the alleged material alteration if any in Ex.P1 in respect of the date and year of issue of cheque. Hence, I am of the opinion that there is no need to send Ex.P1 cheque for an experts opinion as claimed by the Revision Petitioner and therefore, I am not inclined to allow the Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed."