- (1.) HEARD at admission stage. All the above misc. petitions are being decided by this common order as all of them involve identical controversy and question of law is also same in all the misc. petitions.
(2.) THIS misc. petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated. 5. 3. 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 in criminal Revision No. 149/2003 by which the learned Additional Sessions judge No. 1, Sri ganganagar dismissed the revision petition filed by the accused petitioner and upheld the order dated. 19. 9. 2003 passed by the learned additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in criminal case No. 546/2001 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate while allowing the application filed by the accused petitioner under Section 73 of the Evidence Act directed comparison of hand-writing of complainant on the cheques in question instead of accused petitioner himself , by the hand-writing expert.
(3.) IT arises in the following circumstances : i) That the respondent No. 2-complainant filed a complaint against the accused petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument act, 1881 on account of dishonour of cheque issued by the petitioner. Thereafter on being summoned, the accused petitioner appeared before the trial court and when the statement of respondent no. 2-complainant was being recorded in the court, a suggestion was made to the complainant on behalf of the counsel for the accused that name and amount in the disputed cheque has been filled in up by the complainant and not by the accused petitioner, but that suggestion was denied by the respondent No. 2- complainant. ii) Thereafter the accused petitioner moved an application under section 73 of the Evidence Act stating that the accused petitioner issued blank cheques and handed over to respondent No. 2-complainant and when the cheques were in the custody of the complainant respondent No. 2, the complainant -respondent No. 2 filled in up these cheques by adding his own name, date and amount and according to the petitioner, this act itself amounts to material alteration and renders the cheque invalid and therefore, a prayer was made that the handwriting on the disputed cheques be compared with the hand-writing of the accused petitioner through handwriting expert. iii) The learned Additional chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing both the parties through order dated. 19. 9. 2003 allowed the application filed under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, but instead of comparing the handwriting of the accused petitioner, the learned Magistrate ordered that the handwriting of respondent No. 2 complainant be compared with the entries made in the disputes cheques. iv) Being aggrieved by the order dated 19. 9. 2003, the accused petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, sri Ganganagar and the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, sri Ganganagar through judgment dated 5. 3. 2004 rejected the same and upheld the order dated. 19. 9. 2004 passed by the learned magistrate. Hence, this misc. petition. ;