GAVISIDDESHWARA HIREMATH Vs. SANJEEV BASAVARAJAPPA KARADAKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., challenging the order passed by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Koppal in C.C.No.709/2014 dated 08.02.2019, whereby the trial Court had rejected the application filed by the petitioner being arraigned as accused under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case are that the petitioner said to be an accused in C.C.No.709/2014, whereby he is facing up of trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, alleging that he had issued a cheque at Ex.P1 in a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- in order to repay the loan amount. The cheque has been presented by the respondent-complainant for encashment, but the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement "insufficient funds in the account of the account holder". Subsequently the respondent-complainant initiated the proceedings against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Subsequent to initiation of the proceedings in C.C.No.709/2014, the complainant has examined himself as PW1 and was also marked several documents in order to prove the guilt of the accused for the aforesaid offence. After closure of the evidence on the parts of the complainant, the case was set down for recording the incriminating statement as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and subsequent to recording statement, the case has been set down for defene evidence. In the meanwhile of the proceedings between the complainant and the accused in C.C.No.709/2014, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to refer Ex.P1-Cheque for scientific investigation to ascertain the age of ink found on the cheque. As this contention was taken by the petitioner- applicant before the trial Court; the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal was heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant therein and so also the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant and took erroneous view of the facts and circumstances of the case that the application filed by the applicant under Section 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, came to be dismissed by its order dated 08.02.2019. The Court below has not been assigned justifiable reasons for rejection of the application filed by the applicant-accused; and also observed that when the petitioner has admitted the signature, the opinion report is not required. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner-accused preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order passed by the trial Court.