SAFURA KHATUN BIBI Vs. DAMODAR SABAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. K. Nayak learned counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) IN this application under Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 21.7.2009 passed in I.C.C. Case No. 371 of 2008, whereby, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Balasore has been pleased to reject a petition filed by the accused petitioner with a prayer for sending the disputed cheques to the handwriting expert for authentication of the signatures of the accusedpetitioner inter alia, on the ground that the cheques in question had been dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds and not on the ground of non -tallied of the signatures of the account holder.

(3.) MR . Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the reply filed on behalf of the accused -petitioner under Annexures -5 to the notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act, wherein, the learned counsel for the accusedpetitioner categorically denied the signatures of his client on the body of the cheques in question. But further asserts that the accused is entitled to lead rebuttal evidence. In this respect, no impediment to the prayer of the accused to send the cheques to verify the disputed signatures ought not to have been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Someshwar Rao v. Samineni Nageshwar Rao and Anr.,2009 Supp1 AIR(SC) 2050 and in particular paragraph 14 thereof, which is extracted herein below: