JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL Vs. AGRAWAL SHOES COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.02.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.10, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate had rejected the application filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner had prayed that certain documents should be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 8th April, 2010 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 17.02.2010.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent, Agarwal Shoes Company, had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner on the ground that a cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonored. One of the defences taken by the petitioner was that Atmaram, one of the directors of the company, had in fact submitted a form for opening of the account. Moreover, a cheque book had also been issued to the petitioner on the basis of the form submitted by Atmaram. However, when Atmaram was asked a question with regard to these facts, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he denied the same. Subsequently, the Bank Manager was examined as D.W.1. The Bank Manager, in his testimony, stated that the account to which the cheque related to, was certainly opened at the instance of Atmaram. Therefore, in order to disprove that denial of Atmaram, an application was filed seeking permission that the application submitted by Atmaram, for opening of the bank account, the receipt whereby the amount was deposited for opening of the bank account, the application for issuance of the cheque book, these documents be sent to the Forensice Science Laboratory in order to prove that these documents contained Atma Ram's signature. However, vide order dated 17.02.2010, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. The learned Judge, vide its order dated 08.04.2010 dismissed the said revision petition and has confirmed the order dated 17.02.2010. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that in order to create doubt about the creditworthiness of Atmaram, it is imperative that the documents mentioned above should be sent for examination to the FSL. According to him, in case the witness can be discredited on one point, his testimony become highly doubtful on every point.