SHASHINDRA MAHALING NAIK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, r/w 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner-accused in STC No.557/2009 pending before JMFC, Rahata, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 14.02.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Kopargaon in Criminal Revision Application No.1/2011 and to allow the application Exhibit-88 moved by the petitioner before JMFC, Rahata to refer the cheque (Exhibit-29) to hand writing expert.

(2.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, draw my attention towards the cross examination of respondent No.2-complainant. From perusal of the cross examination and admissions given by respondent No.2, it is clear that the petitioner is the only signatory to the cheque in question and the other particulars are not in his hand writing. In answer to question No.11, u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has taken a specific defence that the signed blank cheques were issued by way of security to respondent No.2-Complainant and the dates are adjusted by respondent No.2 so as to suit his case. Apparently, there appears some alteration in the date on the cheque, in respect of year. When the complainant himself, in no uncertain terms, has admitted that the petitioner is only signatory to the cheque and the remaining particulars are not in his hand writing then a question arose as to whether the date on the cheque is suitably adjusted to bring the complaint within limitation and this is a core question which goes to the root of the dispute and to decide as to whether the complaint is barred by limitation.