MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petitioner under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order of learned trial Court dated 11.3.2010 whereby her application filed for second time under Section 311, Cr.P.C. to summon a private handwriting expert, has been rejected. As is evident from the impugned order, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed way back in the year 2004. Evidence of the complainant was closed on 22.9.2007 and then from 26.10.2007, matter was fixed for evidence of the defence. Prayer was made by the defence to adduce evidence on 1.12.2007 and 23.1.2008, that was allowed. The accused thereafter submitted two applications one under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and another under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, which were allowed by the trial Court by order dated 24.10.2008 and on her request, disputed cheques along with her admitted signatures, were sent to handwriting expert for comparison of the two signatures by order of the Court dated 29.5.2009. Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) was received on 18.7.2009. The accused-petitioner thereafter examined one Prakash Chand in evidence as DW-1 on 3.9.2009. The accused petitioner then obtained a handwriting report of private expert and produced the same before the Court. She then filed yet another application on 9.9.2009 praying that this private handwriting expert Renu Kumari should also be called in evidence of defence. The trial Court by the impugned order has given last opportunity to the accused petitioner to produce the said handwriting expert or any other evidence in defence, which she might like to produce. It however declined the prayer for issuance of summon to that handwriting expert.
(2.) CONTENTION of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even though the report of the private handwriting expert was obtained by the accused-petitioner by making payment of fees to her, but she is not agreeable to appear before the Court on her request. It would be very necessary that summon be issued to that handwriting expert by the Court so that she can appear. Learned Counsel submitted that if the said witness is not called in evidence, it would tantamount to denying fair opportunity of defence to the petitioner. The learned trial Court as also the learned revisional Court have committed serious error of law in rejecting application of the petitioner. Learned Counsel in support of his arguments cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Hanuman Ram v. State & Ors., IV (2008) CCR 433 (SC)=IV (2008) DLT (Crl.) 544 (SC)=2009(l) WLC (SC) Criminal 16, Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam, 1 (2007) CCR 203 (SC)=1 (2007) DLT (Crl.) 66 (SC) and judgment of this Court in Om Prakash Joshi v. Radhey Shyam Bitochi, 2006(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 957. Per contra Mr. Peeyush Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Misc. petition and argued that petitioner has been purposely delaying completion of trial. Matter is pending for recording her evidence in defence for last 3 years and the complaint was filed way back in the year 2004. Already earlier handwriting expert's report of the FSL of the Government requisitioned on application of the petitioner herself, is on record. Subsequent handwriting report of the private handwriting expert was submitted by the petitioner on her own and when she has herself paid fees to such expert, it was for her to produce the said expert. The Court was fully/justified in declining such a prayer. But, at the same time, the Court has also granted one last opportunity to the accused-petitioner to produce this witness or any other witness on her own, if she wanted to do so.
(3.) I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record.;