Hon'ble SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.8.2009 by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Hindaun City Dist. Karauli (Rajasthan) in complaint case No. 88/2007 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act whereby the application for sending the cheque for examination of signature on cheque by hand writing expert was rejected.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused petitioner wherein summons were issued to him for appearance and in compliance of the summons the accused appeared before the Court. Thereafter the complainant respondent No. 2 has appeared in witness box as prosecution witness. After completion of the prosecution evidence the matter was posted for the petitioner's (accused evidence) under Section 215 Cr.P.C. The accused petitioner appeared in witness box as DW.1 and denied the signature on the disputed cheque. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application on 12.8.2009 stating therein that the signature on the disputed cheque is not of the accused petitioner but forged one and the same may be sent for examination by the hand writing expert. Upon that application the Judicial Magistrate has passed the order dated 28.8.2009 giving the following observations: JUDGEMENT_1898_RAJLW3_2011Image1.jpg Against the said order this petition has been filed. Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the trial Court is exfacie illegal. He has further contended that the order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside as it has failed to give opportunity to prove his innocence as per the provisions of Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel placed reliance on Ryam Commerce and Plantation Ltd. vs. Moti Lal Baid and another II (2000) BC 242 and Kalyani Baskar vs. M.S. Sampoornam I (2007) CCR 203 (SC). On the other hand Mr. Anoop Pareek, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that non-examination of handwriting expert to prove genuineness of signature on cheque was not of any significance and this will not cause any prejudice to him. The cheque was dishonoured not on ground that the signature did not match but on the ground of insufficiency of funds. The learned counsel in support of his argument placed reliance on L.C. Goyal vs. Mrs. Suresh Joshi and others (AIR 1999 SC 2222). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the cases cited by both the parties. It is an admitted position that the cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient fund and hence the application for examination of signature by the handwriting expert at this stage cannot be allowed and the trial Court rightly rejected the application. The petitioner at no stage denied his signature and when the case is fixed at the final stage for arguments, such an application for examination of signature by the handwriting expert has been submitted by the petitioner in order to delay the proceedings. The order passed by the trial Court is just and proper in refusing to examine the hand writing expert at this stage. In view of the above, the misc. Petition is rejected being devoid of merit. In the facts and circumstances of the case the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The interim stay granted on 23.10.2009 and further continued vide order dated 9.11.2009 stand vacated. ;