JAYPRAKASH GUPTA Vs. LAKSHMI ELECTRICALS SHAHDOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dtd. 7/6/2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.20 of 2016 whereby the revisional Court has partially allowed the revision of the petitioner but the prayer of the petitioner for examination of the cheque by handwriting expert under Ss. 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act has been rejected.

(2.) The facts, in a nutshell, are that the respondent has filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. During trial, the petitioner moved an application under Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C. and another application under Sec. 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act seeking permission from the Court to get the cheque in question examined by the handwriting expert. The application for examination of the instrument by handwriting expert was rejected by the trial Court on 16/1/2016 stating that opinion of the expert is not necessary in the present case. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Sessions Court. The revisional court vide impugned order dtd. 7/5/2016 (Annexure P-2) affirmed the order of the trial Court so far as it pertains to rejection of the application under Ss. 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the basic defense of the petitioner is that the cheque in question has not been issued by him in favour of the respondent in lieu of any commercial transaction, however, the same was issued to him only as a security and it is also the defense of the petitioner that the petitioner had not mentioned any date, amount or name on the cheque and in order to prove that the handwriting on the cheque was not his, opinion of the handwriting expert is necessary. The Courts below have absolutely ignored the settled legal position that if there is signature of the accused on the blank cheque and there is difference in the writing on the cheque, the handwriting expert is required to be examined for arriving on proper conclusion. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the decisions in the cases of Sohanlal Singhal v. Sunil Jain, 2015 (1) MPLJ 422, Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam, (2007) 2 SCC 258, Abhishek v. (2) MPLJ 472 and M.S. Narayanana Menon v. State of Kerala and Another, (2006) 6 SCC 39