Banwari Lal Sharma @APPELLANT@Hash Babu Lal Bagda

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 18.8.2018 passed by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate,

No.25, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur Headquater Chomu, whereby prayer of the petitioner to send the cheque in question for comparison of

signatures of petitioner on the cheque with admitted signatures of the petitioner has been rejected, be set aside.

This case has a long drawn history. The petitioner had issued a cheque, which on presentation was returned by the Bank by informing the

complainant that payment of the cheque has been stopped by the petitioner.

Mr. Anil Upman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner on 17.1.2018 filed an application stating therein that

handwriting on the cheque ExhibitP/3 and Statement of Account Exhibit-D/1 are not in the handwriting of the petitioner. The trial court accepted the

prayer and had sent the cheque in question and the Statement of Account for comparison to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (for short

’FSL’). The FSL came to the conclusion that the handwriting on the cheque including signatures and handwriting on the Statement of Account

Exhibit-D/1 including signatures on Exhibit-D/1 are in one hand and both have been executed by a common author.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is nowhere proved that the handwriting on both i.e. cheque and document is of the petitioner.

Mr. Shish Ram Saini, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner had not disputed his signatures on the cheque at any given

opportunity.

Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that had the accused petitioner doubted signatures on the cheque, same would have been sent

for comparison.

To controvert, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that right from the beginning case of the petitioner is that handwriting and signatures

on the cheque and statement of accounts and signatures thereupon are of one person and not of the petitioner.

The journey of the court is to find truth. Therefore, the court shall always make endeavour for the same. It would have been appropriate for the

trial court to send signatures of the petitioner on admitted documents and on the cheque for comparison to ward off controversy to be raised in future,

as the same has been raised now.

Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the argument raised is nothing but a ploy to cause delay.

This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that the bank official have not compared the signatures of the petitioner on the cheque with the

specimen signature on record of the bank, as the cheque was returned for the reason that the payment was stopped by the complainant. Therefore, it

will be necessary to compare the signatures of the petitioner on the cheque with his admitted signatures on the record of the bank.

Liberty is also granted to the complainant that if he is so advised, he can pray before the trial court to send Vakalatnama of the petitioner and

affidavits filed by him in the court also for comparison.

It will be suffice to compare the signature on the cheque with the specimen signature of the petitioner with the bank from the account of which

cheque was issued.

Consequently, the present petition is disposed of, by issuing following directions:-

(a) That the trial court shall call the bank official for production ofspecimen signatures of the petitioner retained by the bank in respect of account

maintained by the petitioner.

(b) That the specimen signatures available with the bank shall besent alongwith the cheque in question for comparison to FSL.

(c) That upon prayer made by the complainant, signatures of thepetitioner on the Vakalatnama and the affidavits filed in the court shall also be sent for

comparison with the signatures on the cheque.

(d) That the handwriting expert at FSL is directed to submit reportregarding comparison of signatures on the cheque with the specimen signatures

obtained from the bank and if prayed by the complainant with the documents sent, within one month from the receipt of the documents.

(e) That till the report of FSL is received, proceedings in the trialcourt shall be kept in abeyance.

(f) That after receipt of report from the FSL, the trial court shallcomplete the trial within one month thereafter.

As a parting note, this Court may note that in the present case, directions for comparison of the signatures by FSL have been given only because

earlier petitioner had submitted report of private handwriting expert wherein handwriting of the petitioner was doubted and furthermore, the trial court

in its wisdom had earlier sent the documents to FSL. So far this Court is concerned, the report of private handwriting expert in matters pertaining

under ‘The Negotiable Instruments Act’ should have been sufficient for adjudication in the matter, after appreciation thereof by the trial court.