NISHAL MAHAJAN Vs. CHANDER BHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The complainant/respondent herein instituted a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused/petitioner herein arising out of dishonour of negotiable instrument which stood issued by the accused/petitioner herein to the complainant. During the pendency of the complaint before the learned trial Court, an application under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act stood preferred there before by the petitioner/accused with a prayer therein qua the writings scribing the details of the amount in the dishonoured negotiable instrument being ordered to be compared with the admitted handwriting of the complainant given his contesting the factum of his scribing the details of the amount of money reflected in the dishonoured negotiable instrument rather his espousing qua the aforesaid details standing scribed therein by the complainant/respondent herein. Consequently, he espoused therein qua the ordering by the learned trial Court for transmission of the relevant cheque to the handwriting expert concerned for facilitating him to after comparing the admitted handwriting of the complainant with the hand writings qua the aforesaid facet occurring in the relevant cheque render an apposite opinion thereon. The learned trial Court dismissed the application.

(2.) The accused stands aggrieved by the pronouncement of the learned trial Court on his apposite application, hence, for assailing it he has instituted the instant petition here before. A perusal of the application preferred under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act by the accused/petitioner herein before the learned trial Court unfolds qua his therein admitting qua the relevant cheque holding his signatures. Admission of the accused qua the aforesaid facet did disable him to repudiate authenticity of his signatures occurring on the relevant cheque also thereupon he stood disabled to ask for a relief qua his signatures occurring on the relevant cheque warranting determination of their authenticity by the expert concerned. Consequently, the relief qua the facet aforesaid as stood refused to the petitioner/accused by the learned trial Court does not warrant any interference.

(3.) Be that as it may, it appears that the learned trial Court has slighted the additional averment made in the apposite application qua his not scribing the amount of money occurring in the relevant cheque rather the aforesaid amount standing scribed by the respondent/complainant whereupon he prayed qua the authorship of the aforesaid writings being ordered to be determined by the expert concerned. Since, the aforesaid facet holds leverage to the petitioner/accused to canvass a defence of his issuing a blank cheque to the respondent/complainant whereupon hence he may concomitantly succeed qua his prima facie standing falsely arraigned in the complaint as an accused, hence, for facilitating the aforesaid defence, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to make an apposite pronouncement significantly for facilitating the facet aforesaid standing firmly clinched qua hence an apposite reference being made to the handwriting expert. However, its omission to do so has caused a serious prejudice to the defence, if any, anchored upon the aforesaid facet which may stand reared by the petitioner/accused. In sequel, to this extent the impugned order stands gripped with an infirmity.