RYAM COMMERCE AND PLANTATION LTD Vs. MOTILAL BAID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject matter of this Revisional Application is the Order No. 9 dated 28 -5 -1999 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1999. The learned Chief Judge by his impugned order allowed the Revisional Application filed on behalf of the Opposite Party challenging an order dated 22 -21999 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta and allowed his prayer for examination of cheque in question (Ext. 1) by a handwriting expert: Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has come up before this Court on several grounds.

(2.) THE learned Lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that this is a dilatory tactic adopted by the Accused/Opposite Party to delay the Trial and that from the evidence adduced by the Bank Officials it never transpired that the cheque was returned as the signature was not tallying with the specimen signature lying with the Bank and even no suggestion was given to them that the signature of the Opposite Party was not tallying with the specimen signature given in the Bank. It has further been submitted that the Notice was issued within the stipulated period making demand of the amount quoting the cheque No. and reply thereto was sent by the Opposite Party through his learned lawyer without denying the issuance of the said cheque in favour of the Petitioners Company and the defence at the belated stage that the Cheque was not issued by the Opposite Party is nothing but to prolong the matter. Thereafter, it was also submitted that the cheque in question (Ext. 1) being forged cheque is nothing but an after -thought and at the stage, the point taken by the Opposite Party should not have been accepted and the learned Chief Judge erred in allowing the prayer of the petitioner for examination of handwriting expert by setting aside the Order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta on 22 -2 -1999 passed in case No. 1212 of 1996.

(3.) SEVERAL decisions have been relied upon by the parties, which I find are not pertinent to the case as such I refrain from discussing the same.