BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. ARVIND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. for quashing the order dated 23.05.2013 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.123/2013, whereby the order passed by J.M.F.C. Gwalior in Criminal Case No.7693/2010, has been confirmed and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the petitioner gave a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent. When the cheque was presented to the bank the same was dishonoured. The learned trial Court has recorded the statement of the respondent/ complainant and the case was fixed for evidence. The petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act wherein prayer was made that manipulation in the date has been done. Therefore, it should be sent for handwriting expert for opinion with regard to the period of the ink and also the handwriting, but the prayer was rejected by the Ld. J.M.F.C. The Criminal Revision was preferred by the petitioner which has also been rejected and the order passed by the learned Magistrate has been confirmed. Being aggrieved this petition has been filed.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Court below are illegal, arbitrary and against the settled provisions of law. Both the learned Courts below have committed grave error of law in recording a finding that the petitioner has admitted his signature, while the petitioner was not examined in the Court when the impugned order was passed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has specifically asserted that the date of cheque has been manipulated. The number "9" in place of "8" has been inserted in the cheque. Therefore, the examination by the handwriting expert regarding the aforesaid manipulation is necessary. It is further submitted that the petitioner has constitutional right to defend himself. The petitioner has been deprived from his valuable right and prayed that the order be quashed.