BHOOP RAM Vs. PARMINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is maintained by the petitioner/accused (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") under Sections 397 and 401 Crimial P.C. against order dated 14.12.2015, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Solan, in Case No. 475-3 of 2012, dated 14.12.2015, on application filed under Sections 45 to 47 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(2.) The brief facts, giving rise to the present revision petition, can succinctly be summarized as under: As per the petitioner, he was Ward Member, village Shallot, Sub Tehsil Junga, District Shimla, H.P., and was entrusted with the work of hiring machines for construction of link roads under the Member Parliament Local Area Development Scheme. The petitioner apprised the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") that he will be paid only after grant is released under the Member Parliament Local Area Development Scheme. Thereafter, the JCB machines of the respondent were hired for construction of the road. Subsequently, the respondent maintained a case against the petitioner under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act qua cheque No. 0088666, dated 12.07.2012, amounting to Rs. 4,00,000.00 (rupees four lac). The petitioner again apprised the respondent that he has no personal liability qua the payment for construction of roads and the amount will be paid under the Member Parliament Local Area Development Scheme, through the concerned authorities, i.e., concerned Gram Panchayat. During the pendency of the case before the learned Trial Court, the petitioner moved an application under Sec. 45, 46 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking opinion of the handwriting expert, though it was to be filed under Sec. 243 Crimial P.C. However, no orders were passed on the application and ultimately on 14.12.2015, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application, hence the present petition preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Trial Court wrongly rejected the application seeking opinion of handwriting expert. He has further argued that by dismissing the application, which was filed seeking opinion of handwriting expert, the learned Trial Court has curtailed valuable right of the petitioner of "fair trial". To support his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court rendered in T. Nagappa vs. Y. R. Muralidhar, 2008 AIR(SC) 2010, wherein, vide para 9, it has been held as under: