MANTESH KUMAR Vs. SHOBHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed against the order dtd. 16/6/2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., vide which the application filed under Ss. 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act'). The respondent/complainant availed of 25 opportunities and closed the evidence on 23/7/2024. The statement of the petitioner/accused was recorded under Sec. 313 of the CrPC. The petitioner/accused examined a private Forensic Expert as DW2, who tendered a Forensic Report (Ex - DW2/A) and opined that the signatures and handwriting n the cheque are not those of the petitioner/accused. He admitted in his cross-examination that he did not have the original ecord, and he had compared the photocopies. The learned Trial Court discarded the evidence of the Expert and prejudiced the defence of the petitioner/accused. The petitioner/accused examined the Customer Relationship Officer of Federal Bank, Ludhiana, who brought the original record containing the signatures of the petitioner/accused. The learned Trial Court gave its opinion that the complaint would be allowed, hence, the petitioner/accused filed an application under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for the comparison of his signatures through a Government Forensic Expert. The application was opposed by the respondent/complainant. A rejoinder was filed. The petitioner/accused also applied Sec. 315 of the Cr. P.C. for examining himself as his witness. The right to a fair trial of the petitioner/accused was violated. The signatures of the petitioner/accused were forged, and it is necessary to compare the signatures to arrive at the truth. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the signatures be sent to the expert for comparison.

(3.) Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for leading additional evidence. This is violative of the right to a fair t ial. He relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Cr.MMO No.806 of 2023, titled Saroj Kumari Vs. Harminder decided on 5/12/2023, in support of his submission.