Duni Chand vs Indian Bank, Branch

Anoop Chitkara, J

This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the following:

Complaint No.17-III/18/14

Order dated 6.11.2018, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1., Mandi District Mandi, H.P.

Cr. Revision No.2/2019

Order dated 16.8.2019, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.

Challenging the above captioned orders, declining the request to send the cheque for handwriting expert, the accused has come up before this Court.

The accused is facing prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The cheque amounting to Rs.21,00,000/-(Ex.CW1/E) handed over by the petitioner to the Indian Bank, was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The bank lodged prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the accused.

During the pendency of trial, the accused filed an application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act for sending the cheque for expert opinion for comparison of his handwriting and comparison of his signatures. The accused took specific ground that the cheque did not bear his signatures.

The petitioner has annexed the copy of prosecution witness, CW-1 Tej Singh Thakur, who was the Manager of Indian Bank. His cross-examination which took place on 8.3.2008 reveals that a specific question was put on behalf of the accused that the bank had obtained blank cheques before issuing loan. The accused did not put the question by stating that such blank cheques were not signed. There was no occasion for the bank to obtain blank cheques without signatures. Even if, the bank had received blank cheques, there was no occasion for the bank to have them without signatures of the accused on it. Thus, at the time of cross-examination of the Manager of Indian Bank, the accused did not cross-examine specifically that the bank officials had forged his signatures on it.

Given this kind of cross-examination, there is no justification for the accused to ask for expert opinion regarding the accused's signature on the said cheques.

I have also gone through the impugned orders, in which one of the factors which weighed with both the Courts was that it was delay tactics. Both the impugned orders are well reasoned and call for non interference.

Be that as it may, given the limited cross-examination and the absence of material suggestions to the Bank Manager, this petition is not maintainable. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and it is dismissed accordingly.

Since this matter is very old, as such, this Court requests the trial Court to expedite the trial. Registry to send a copy of this order to the concerned Court.

Pending application(s), if any, are also closed.