RAJENDRA MUNDRA Vs. KAILASH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under section 482 of Cr. P. C. is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Complaint Case No. 6477/2011 dated 17.12.2013 and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 06/2014 dated 17.01.2014.

(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the respondent filed a complaint under section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act against the present applicant on the dishonor of two cheques allegedly issued by the present applicant in favour of the respondent for the total sum amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/-. At the stage of defence evidence, an application was filed by the present applicant for examination of the disputed cheques by the handwriting expert and also calling witness Pappu Patodi as defence witness. It is alleged by the present applicant that the respondent was working as an employee in his establishment. As a business practice, blank cheques with signature of the present applicant were given to third party as a security for the amount that due against them. One such cheque was returned by the third party Pappu Patodi S/o. Ratan Patodi. The cheque was returned back to the respondent who misused the cheque and had returned his own name and other writing on the cheque and filed the present complaint committing fraud and mischief.

(3.) The learned Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order dismissed the application on the ground that no question was asked during the cross-examination of the complainant Kailash Jain in respect of writing on the cheques. No suggestion was given to him during cross-examination. The signatures were admitted by the present applicant and nowhere it is mentioned that he wanted to prove that remaining entries on the cheque were filled by somebody else. The Revisional Court in his order dated 17.01.2014 observed that once signature on the cheque is admitted then inference can be drawn that the cheque was issued validly by the person signing the cheque. Even if remaining entries were filled up by some other person the presumption shall be drawn that cheque was issued by the person by whom the cheque was purported to have been signed. If the present applicant wanted to prove that cheque was issued for some other transaction then he could have adduce evidence for this purpose. The learned Revisional Court deserved that the application was filed only to cause delay and, therefore, he dismissed the revision and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was confirmed.