SANDEEP MEHRA Vs. CHANDER PARKASH MADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in a complaint filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He is aggrieved because vide order dtd. 25/1/2016 (Annexure P-6) the trial Court has rejected his prayer for examination of handwriting expert and vide order dtd. 26/2/2016 (Annexure P-8) his evidence has been closed by order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court was in error in dismissing his application for examination of handwriting expert on the ground that he had not taken the defence that the signature on the cheque in dispute had been forged because the cross-examination of the complainant shows that a specific question in this regard was put to the complainant. Even in the statement of the petitioner recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., it has been so stated. Further, on 26/2/2016 two witnesses have been summoned by the Court but they did not appear despite service. Thus, the petitioner could not be penalized because the fault did not lie with him.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent fairly states that one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to conclude his evidence subject to payment of costs.