DEEPAKKUMAR S/O DWARKADAS AGRAWAL Vs. ASHOKKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Heard forthwith finally by consent of learned counsel for rival parties.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 20.2.2010 below Ex.125 in Summary Criminal Case No.5035 of 2003 passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application for referring the documents to the hand writing expert, the present application has been filed by the applicant/accused.

(3.) I have gone through the impugned order refusing to make reference of the documents to the hand writing expert. It is not in dispute that the cheques in question were signed by the applicant. The only dispute that is being raised by the applicant/accused is that except for his signatures on the cheques and letter heads, the other hand writing on these documents is not his and that is why those documents should be examined by hand writing expert so that the applicant/accused can make attempt to prove his case about the defence which he has taken immediately after the theft of cheques and letter heads by his servant. It is seen that the applicant himself admitted that the cheques were signed by him and those cheques were blank cheques. Whether or not those cheques were stolen by his servant and whether or not they were given to the complainant are the matters of evidence which the applicant/accused is entitled to prove in his defence by leading appropriate defence. As a matter of fact, that is totally a different issue, whether he is able to prove his defence to the satisfaction of the court even by preponderance of probability. To mix up the same with the hand writing on the cheques or letter heads is something which is absurd. The hand writing on the cheques and the letter heads can easily be compared and there was no need for the trial court to send those documents for the opinion of the hand writing expert. After all the opinion of the hand writing expert is not binding on the Court.