SUBHASH CHAND Vs. MUKESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition stands directed against the order recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Una, District Una, H.P., whereby, he dismissed the application preferred before him, by the accused, in application whereof, he made a prayer "for" sending the relevant scribings occurring in cheque, power of attorney/vaklatnama and acknowledgement, "for" their comparison by the Handwriting expert, with the admitted scribings/writings of the accused. The accused/petitioner herein, is aggrieved by the aforesaid pronouncement, hence, for assailing it, he has instituted the instant petition before this Court.

(2.) It is stated before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, that after completion of the recording of the complainant's evidence and after the recording of the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., by the learned trial Court, the case now is listed before the learned trial Court, for the recording of the evidence in defence of the accused/petitioner. The application, upon which the impugned verdict, stands recorded by the learned trial Court, was preferred before it, on 21.09.2015. However, the institution of the instant application before the learned trial Court, after completion of recording of the complainant's evidence, would not per se bar the accused/petitioner, to, by preferring an application before it, seek a direction from it, "for" transmission to the expert concerned, the scribings/writings occurring on the relevant documents along with the admitted writings of the accused, for hence the expert concerned making an opinion, whether both hold similarity or not. However, the belated preferment of the aforesaid application by the accused, especially after completion of the aforesaid proceedings before it, would operate as a bar, against its preferment, only when no suggestions stood put by the counsel for the accused/petitioner, to the complainant's witnesses, with echoings therein, qua the accused delivering a blank cheque to the complainant, "whereas", the details of sums of money borne on the dishonoured negotiable instrument, being filled in besides scribed by somebody else. For determining, the aforesaid facet, it is imperative to allude, to a singular statement, occurring in the crossexamination of one of the complainant's witnesses, statement(s) whereof were produced before this Court, by the counsel for the accused/petitioner. An allusion thereto unveils that disclosures occur in the cross-examination of the complainant, disclosures whereof unveil that the counsel for the accused, had merely put vague suggestion(s) to him that the relevant signature(s) occurring in the dishonoured negotiable instrument, being inked with an ink of a colour different from the one with user whereof, the details of the amount of money reflected therein "stand inked", as also, with respect to the name of the drawer reflected therein, being inked in a colour different than the ink with user whereof, the accused signatured the relevant cheque. The aforesaid vague suggestions, hence, cannot, at all enhance any inference, that the accused/petitioner, ever contested that he had not filled/scribed, the amount borne on the dishonoured negotiable instrument also it cannot rear any inference, that he urged a defence that a blank signatured cheque was handed over by him to the complainant and that the details of the amount of money borne therein, were scribed by the complainant or somebody else. In aftermath, with the aforesaid relevant defence being never espoused by the accused, he cannot belatedly through the instant application be permitted, to engineer it

(3.) For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the instant petition and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the order impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications stands disposed of.