L.N. Mittal, J. - (1.) APPLICATION is allowed and Zimni Orders of the trial court, as reproduced in the application itself, are taken on record.
(2.) MAIN Case: The petitioner, after being convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, preferred appeal in the Sessions Court and therein moved an application under Sections 311, 391 and 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short -'the Code'), read with Section 73 of the Evidence Act, for furnishing her more specimen signatures and then sending the same to Government Expert for comparison with her alleged signature on the disputed cheque and also to direct one Parveen Kumar Sethi to appear in the court and to admit his tape recorded conversation recorded on 17.01.2006. The said application has been dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 26.09.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. Perusal of the zimni orders of the trial court, placed on record today, reveals that application of accused for sending her specimen signatures to handwriting expert for comparison with her alleged signature on the disputed cheque was allowed by order dated 03.02.2006 and thereupon report (Annexure P -3) dated 01.05.2006 was received that although the questioned signature and the standard signatures showed difference but to evaluate the difference properly and for a definite opinion, more suitable and sufficient admitted signatures of the concerned person, already existing on some documents, preferably on cheques, in the proximity of period of the questioned signature, are required. After receipt of this report, the petitioner was granted six opportunities for her defence evidence, but she did not lead any defence evidence. She did not send the disputed signatures again for comparison with admitted or standard signatures by the handwriting expert, as mentioned in report (Annexure P3). However, during pendency of appeal, the petitioner moved application which stands dismissed vide impugned order. If the petitioner was genuinely interested in getting further report of the handwriting expert regarding comparison of her disputed signature on the disputed cheque with her admitted or specimen signatures, she had ample opportunity to do so in the trial court after receipt of report (Annexure P -3) because the petitioner was granted six more opportunities for her defence evidence after receipt of the said report.
(3.) THE matter does not rest here. The petitioner, in her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that blank cheque was signed by her in favour of the complainant as security. In this view of the matter also, the learned Appellate Court rightly observed that it would be of no use to examine the handwriting expert. It is also significant to notice that the petitioner wants that her specimen signatures be taken and sent for comparison. However, report (Annexure P -3) did not require the specimen signatures to be taken now for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signature. On the contrary, the report desired that some existing signatures, preferably on cheques and in the proximity of the period of questioned signature be sent for comparison. The petitioner, even now, has not made any such prayer for sending her admitted signatures of the kind required by the Expert for comparison. Thus, the petitioner is indulging in a futile dilatory tactic.;