BIKASH DATTA Vs. G.S. SOKHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) This petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and to allow the petitioner to examine Handwriting Expert for verification of the signatures in cheques Ex. P-15, P/16 and P-17 and to allow the filing of C.D.(compact disk), wherein allegedly the conversation between the applicant/accused and the respondent/complainant has been recorded through Mobile phone in which the complainant has admitted about the transaction between him and the petitioner. But during the course of evidence, when the complainant was asked question about the same, he denied having such conversation.

(3.) The petitioner is facing trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before JMFC, Bhopal in R.C.T. No. 6203/2014. The complainant/respondent allegedly filed this complaint for dishonoured of cheques against the petitioner. The complainant contended that, in lieu of certain works executed by the complainant, the petitioner issued the cheques in question. However, the petitioner/accused disputed that the cheques have not been issued to the respondent. He also made this stand in the reply of his statutory notice. The petitioner pleads that the signature as well as invoices, delivery challans and receipts said to be signed by the petitioner, which are Ex-A- 3 and A-4 may be examined by the Handwriting Expert. The petitioner also contended that the CD (compact disk) may also be examined under Section 45-A and 65-B of the Evidence Act, so that the conversation of the petitioner with the respondent over the Mobile Cell Phone can be taken as evidence. It is further contended that the cheques sought to be examined by the Handwriting Expert were dishonored on the ground of insufficient of funds complaint and not on the ground of mismatch of signature and no question was put to the complainant in the cross-examination in respect of the signatures in the cheques and invoices, delivery challan and receipts, but the petitioner had put questions in the cross-examination to the complainant stating that these documents are forged ones. Therefore, the orders of the Courts below rejecting the application are patently perverse. It is further contended that, the petitioner has the right to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and this right cannot be curtailed.