SURESH CHANDRA BINDAL Vs. NAND KISHORE VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482 of CrPC is preferred by the petitioner herein/complainant against the order dated 25.7.2013 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.203/2013 affirming the order dated 23.5.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.16974/2010 whereby an application under section 243 of CrPC read with section 45 of the Evidence Act filed by the respondent herein/accused for permission to get the disputed writing examined by handwriting expert has been allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein/complainant filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent herein/accused. During the course of trial, the accused filed an application under section 243 of CrPC read with section 45 of the Evidence Act for examination of the writing on disputed cheque by the handwriting expert. The application was allowed vide order dated 23.5.2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior. Being aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed a Criminal Revision bearing No.203/2013. The Revisional Court vide the impugned order dated 25.7.2013 dismissed the revision, hence, this petition is preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) In the case of Kochukuru , the Kerala High Court held that it is not any and every request to forward the cheque to the expert which can be blindly accepted by the Court. The Court has to be satisfied that the request is a bona fide one. In Sathyamoorthy , the accused filed an application for taking the assistance of a handwriting expert to compare the disputed signature in the cheque with that of his admitted signature. The said application was dismissed. Subsequently, another application was filed by the same applicant and it was allowed on the ground that an opportunity to the accused should be given. The Madras High Court in that situation held that once the Court adjudges the cause then, subsequently, it should not be adjudged. The order granting permission to obtain opinion of handwriting expert is erroneous. In Manoj Sharma , the Delhi High Court observed that while considering the application under section 243 (2) of CrPC for expert opinion, the Court must assess the pros and cons and facts and circumstances of the case.