- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 21.01.2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track) No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application for sending the cheque in dispute to a handwriting expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Lalchand, the complainant, filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act alleging dishonor of a cheque. On receiving the complaint, the learned trial court issued notices and conducted trial. Eventually vide order dated 15.02.2010, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed a criminal appeal before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Meanwhile, the petitioner received the opinion dated 09.04.2010 from a handwriting expert, Smt. Renu Kumari, who clearly opined that the entries in the cheque have been made by the complainant in his own writing. Thus, the petitioner filed an application, on 15.11.2010, before the appellate court to take the expert's opinion on record. However, the learned appellate court rejected the said application vide order dated 21.01.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that at the appellate stage, he received an opinion of handwriting expert, wherein he has opined that the cheque has been written by the complainant himself. According to the petitioner, the opinion buttresses his case that the cheque is a forged one. Hence, his prayer that the cheque be sent for being examined by the FSL.
(3.) MR . J. P. Gargey, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that not only should the cheque be sent to the FSL for its examination, but the opinion of the hand writing expert should also be taken on record.;