DASHRATH SUKLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No.38/2016, whereby the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The above revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 08.06.2016 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) Court No.4, Udaipur (here in after referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.1065/2015, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act with a prayer for sending the cheque in question to the handwriting expert for his expert opinion has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act initiated at the instance of the respondent No.2. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed an application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act before the trial court while contending that the respondent No.2 has filled the amount mentioned in the cheque for the excess amount and, therefore, the cheque in question may be sent to the handwriting expert. The trial court has rejected the said application while observing that the handwriting expert has no mechanism to give his opinion whether the amount mentioned in the cheque is excess and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert for his expert opinion is not liable to be accepted. The revisional court has also taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and has rejected the revision petition of the petitioner while observing that there is no mechanism available on the basis of which the handwriting expert can give opinion that the amount mentioned in the cheque is excessive.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned orders passed by the courts below, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below.