VIPIN BIHARI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/accused has filed the criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 3.4.2013 passed by the Court of 1st A.S.J. Dabra (Shri L.L. Garg) rejecting the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act filed by the accused for permitting him to produce handwriting expert as defence witness.

(2.) In brief facts of the case are that complainant Rajesh Sharma lodged a report in the police station to the effect that on 6.6.05 he deposited an amount of Rs.1.5 lacs equally in the names of his sons and daughter. The present petitioner/accused was collection agent of the post office. Six months earlier before lodging the report the complainant went to the post office and enquired there about his investments. The then sub postmaster told him that the passbooks issued to him are correct and his money is deposited in the post office. As per allegations of the report, after six months when the complainant again went to check his account he was told that his passbooks are forged and no such money is deposited in the post office. The criminal case was registered and after completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed in the Court in which the accused is facing trial under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC before the trial Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused may be permitted to get the seized documents examined by a different handwriting expert as on the report presented by the prosecution is neither reliable, trustworthy or creditable as there is no signature on the report and nor the person who has made these report has been examined by the prosecution in the Court. The counsel further submits that the accused is being tried for heinous offences such as 420, 467 and 471 of IPC and so an opportunity should be given to the accused to rebut the prosecution evidence in his defence.