VIKAS KHANNA Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Vikas Khanna has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short - Code of Criminal Procedure.) impugning order dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure P -3) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, as affirmed in revision petition by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, vide judgment dated 20.08.2011 (Annexure P -4).

(2.) RESPONDENT -complainant filed complaint Annexure P -1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused -Petitioner. When the case was pending for defence evidence of the accused -Petitioner, he moved application dated 29.02.2008 (Annexure P -2) for permission to seek opinion of Handwriting Expert regarding age of ink used in the signatures of the accused -Petitioner on the impugned cheque and age of the ink used by the complainant, while filling the cheque in question. The said application has been dismissed by trial Magistrate vide impugned order dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure P -3). Revision petition against the said order preferred by the accused -Petitioner has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, vide impugned judgment dated 20.08.2011 (Annexure P -4). Feeling aggrieved, the accused has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) COUNSEL for the Petitioner, relying on a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bai v. J. Venkateswara Rao reported as : AIR 1994 AP 90 contended that opinion of Expert can be obtained to determine age of the disputed handwriting. Counsel for the Petitioner also relied on a judgment of Madras High Court namely P.R. Ramakrishnan v. P. Govindarajan reported as, 2008 (1) R.C. R. (Cri) 33, wherein disputed cheque, on which the accused had denied his signatures, was ordered to be sent to Handwriting Expert for comparison with admitted signatures of the accused.