MUKESH GOYAL Vs. YASIN PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant/accused has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside of the impugned order dated 18.8.2008 passed by JMFC Indore in Criminal Case No. 1977/07 whereby rejected the application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the disputed cheque for examination by the handwriting expert.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the applicant/accused is facing trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the "NI ACT" for brevity) before JMFC Indore. In this case, at the defence stage the applicant/accused has filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, praying that the disputed cheque be sent for examination by the handwriting expert with regard to the difference of writings in the signature as well as in the operative part of the cheque concerned. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties by the impugned order dated 18.8.2008 dismissed the application; aggrieved by which the applicant has prepared Criminal Revision No.591/08 before the Sessions Judge, Indore. The learned revisional Court has also rejected the revision petition ; aggrieved by which the applicant/accused has come up before this Couit by this petition under Section 482 Cr.RC.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that it is on record by the statement of defence witness Shriram (DW1) that the disputed cheque is from a cheque book issued in the year 1997 by the bank concerned whereas on that cheque the date of issuance is mentioned as 2003, which is forged one and the complainant is misusing the blank cheque issued by the applicant with regard to the surety of the amount concerned which he had already paid to the complainant and to prove the aforesaid facts the applicant/accused has filed the aforesaid application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for examination of the disputed cheque by some handwriting expert so that the difference in between the writing of signature and the writing of other material on the cheque can be examined by the handwriting expert. The learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the aforesaid application and thereby denied the valuable right of the applicant/accused to rebut the complainant's case and thereby committed gross mistake, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned order passed by the Court below and for a direction for examination of the disputed cheque by some handwriting expert.