GURUNANAK SYNTHETIC Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C against the order dated 27.09.2013 passed by Additional Session Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur allowing the Criminal Revision Petition No. 115/2013 and 116/2013 and setting aside the order passed by Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur dated 31.07.2013 whereby revisional court has allowed application preferred by accused/respondent under Section 45 read with Section 73 of Evidence Act for FSL examination of the disputed cheque/s.

(2.) Brief facts reflects that respondent Nemi Chand Sethi admittedly issued two cheque/s No.877253 and 402809 on 02.07.2010 towards payment of business dealing dues which were bounced.

(3.) Respondent Nemi Chand Sethi has admitted issuance of both the cheque/s but has taken plea that cheque/s No. 877253 was issued for ?5,000/- and a prefix of No.7 has subsequently being added, likewise cheque No.402809, which was issued for an amount of ?7,000/- in which two digits six and one have been prefixed and added subsequently, which were not there, when the cheque/s were issued. Upon filing of complaint at the juncture of evidence respondent moved an application to get the said cheque/s examined through FSL and preferred an application under Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Evidence Act, which was/were rejected by the trial court, upon preferring revision, said order was reversed by the revisional court allowing examination of the cheque/s by FSL qua that order present petitioners are before this Court. Relying upon the following verdicts, V. Makesan v. T. Dhanalakshmi 2010(2) Criminal Court Cases 299 (Madras), G. Someshwar Rao v. Samineni Nageshwar Rao & Anr. 2009(4) Civil Court Cases 021 (S.C.), Vishnu Kumar v. Jagdish Prasad(1) DCR 603, Babu v. Vinayagam 2013 (2) DCR 303, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that revisional court has faulted since revision/s are not maintainable against interlocutory order and accused respondent is entitled to produce an expert in his defence evidence after production of complainant-appellant's evidence, thirteen adjournment were sought subsequently impugned application seeking examination of the cheque/s by FSL was moved to cause delay and to protract the matter. Order of the trial court is perfectly valid, revisional court has faulted and has passed a perverse order, which requires to be reversed, so the petition be allowed and order impugned be set aside.