M/S SHOE MALL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the order dtd. 29/8/2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala, whereby the application moved by the petitioner/accused for appointment of a handwriting and fingerprint expert in defence evidence was dismissed, as well as the order dtd. 9/12/2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby the criminal revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner is facing trial in a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of defence evidence, the petitioner moved an application seeking permission to appoint and examine a handwriting and fingerprint expert to establish that the body of the cheques in question had not been filled by him and that the cheques were misused. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court primarily on the ground that the petitioner had not disputed his signatures on the cheques and that the application had been moved at a belated stage. The revision filed against the said order was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala by reiterating the same reasoning.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the defence of the petitioner from the very inception of the trial has been that the cheques were handed over as blank signed cheques and were subsequently misused by filling in the particulars without authority. It is submitted that the right to lead defence evidence is a substantive and valuable right and denial of permission to examine a handwriting expert has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is further argued that merely because the signatures on the cheques are admitted, the petitioner cannot be precluded from establishing his defence that the body of the cheques was filled by someone else. The impugned orders are stated to be mechanical, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of fair trial.