PRABHU DAYAL SHARMA, PROPRIETOR M/S MAMTA ART, RESIDENT OF 229, PUROHIT PADA, BRAHAMPURI, JAIPUR (RAJ.) Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by accused-petitioner challenging orders dated 01.08.2015 in Criminal Case No.370/2010 and dated 17.05.2016 in Cr. Revision Petition No.113/2015, passed by both the courts below on the application filed by accused-petitioner.

(2.) Accused-petitioner is facing trial in Criminal Case No.370/2010 - Girish in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.30, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He moved an application on 20.07.2015 before the trial court, wherein it was prayed that the signatures of Chandra Prakash Shah on the documents Exhibit D-9 and Exhibit D-10 be got tallied with his signatures on the complaint and affidavit, from the Forensic Science Laboratory. It was stated in the application that accused-petitioner is also facing trial in another criminal case titled Chandra Prakash Shah v. Prabhu Dayal Sharma , for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It is contended that Girish Shah and Chandra Prakash Shah are real brothers and the address of both the firms is also common i.e. 1139, Mishra Rajaji Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. It is further contended that business of both the firms is joint, which is being conducted by Chandra Prakash Shah but present complaint has been filed in the name of Girish Shah, while all the transactions of the accusedpetitioner were carried out Chandra Prakash Shah. During the course of cross-examination, the complainant-respondent has denied the signatures of Chandra Prakash on Exhibit D-4 to D-10 and stated that business of both the firms is separate, whereas, as per the accused-petitioner, the signatures on the documents Exhibit D-4 to D-10 are of Chandra Prakash Shah, therefore, the accused-petitioner filed the application praying that signatures on those documents be got tallied from the Forensic Science Laboratory, but the application has been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 01.08.2015, and said order has been affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 17.05.2016 in revision petition preferred there-against.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I do not find any error or illegality in the orders impugned in this revision petition. The complainant-respondent, in the complaint, is stated to run the business in the name and style - M/s. Chandra Prakash & Company, and the accused-petitioner is stated to have purchased goods from that firm on credit basis and gave four bankers cheques and thereafter stopped the payment and thus the cheques were dishonoured. In the matter, the proceedings are at the stage of completion. Both the courts below have observed that there is no material produced by the accused-petitioner to show that he gave the cheques to Chandra Prakash Shah. The matter is at the stage of final hearing and the application appears to have been filed to delay the proceedings, which cannot be permitted. The accused-petitioner has also not denied his signatures on the disputed cheques and the cheques have been dishonoured due to instructions of 'stop payment'.