SHYAM VITTHAL UDAWANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Mr. Chopde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mirza, learned APP for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Patre, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. By the present petition, the accused, in a cheque bouncing case, assails the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting his application for calling an expert opinion about the handwriting upon the disputed cheque and maintaining of the said order by the Court of Sessions, by dismissing an application in revision preferred by him.

(2.) Considering the short controversy involved in this petition, it, would not be necessary to recite in detail about the matters involved in the case except stating that Respondent No. 2 has made the said complaint against the petitioner for having committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the ground of his failure to pay the demanded amount after the demand notice was served upon him after the cheque handed over to the opponent for the liability was bounced, and was returned by the Bank. In the said case, it is the defence of the petitioner that he had handed over the blank cheque.

(3.) Mr. Chopde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, assails the order passed by the Trial Court by submitting that respondent No. 2, during his evidence, having claimed that the petitioner has given a written cheque, it was necessary to call the opinion of an expert for substantiating the defence of the petitioner that he has handed over the signed blank cheque. The learned Counsel submits that the same was necessary as the establishment of such a facet would adversely affect the other claims stated by respondent No. 2 on oath. In short, it is his submission that establishing of such a facet was necessary for proper appreciation of the evidence of the complainant for evaluating the truthfulness or falsity of the accusations levelled by him. Mr. Chopde, learned Counsel states that non-giving of such an opportunity to the petitioner would result in not giving him a fair and equal opportunity at a trial, to establish his case. He submits that such an opportunity is denied only on the count of the petitioner having admitted his signature on the cheque and the orders impugned, passed by the Trial Court as well as Revisional Court, failed to appreciate the purpose for which the petitioner intended to obtain the opinion of an expert i.e. not regarding the signature part on the cheque but other matter recorded on the cheque.