Raunak Chand and another vs State of Punjab

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is not present. The petitioners are also not present. They were called absent.

The petitioners filed this revision petition against the order dated 22.11.1993 in C.C. No. 3 dated 15.1.1993. The petitioners were prosecuted under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 419, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code. The prosecution closed its evidence. The petitioners were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and have been asked to lead the evidence in defence. They examined Gopal Krishan Sharma, Handwriting Expert, in support of their defence. He submitted an application in which he stated that he was summoned twice. He stated in the court that he was not told as to on which aspect he has to give the evidence and he has not been supplied any document or handwriting or any disputed signatures for his opinion and no material was supplied to him for comparison. The learned counsel appearing for the accusedpetitioners in the trial court also was not in a position to tell the court, the purpose of summoning the Handwriting Expert Gopal Krishan Sharma, therefore, the learned Magistrate closed the evidence for the petitioners in their defence as they did not want to examine any other witness and posted the matter for arguments on 1.12.1993. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners filed the above revision petition. In the grounds of revision, the petitioners stated that the evidence of Expert is most essential evidence and could not be ignored before deciding the case under Sections 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code, and it is also mentioned that the Expert was summoned as a defence witness on State expenses and that the disposal of the application is premature.

It is for their defence, the petitioners summoned Gopal Krishan Sharma, the Handwriting Expert. When he says that he has not examined or compared any document and no documents were supplied to him for comparison, there is no question of his evidence being taken. The petitioners have not even alleged in their grounds of revision that the said expert namely Gopal Krishan Sharma compared any document or gave his opinion at any stage of the proceedings or even before the proceedings either at the instance of the prosecution or at the instance of the accused, further Gopal Krishan Sharma has filed an application that he has not given any opinion earlier and for giving an opinion he required photographs of the disputed and specimen signatures for comparison and for preparing the report and taking photographs and typing etc. a huge amount was required.

Admittedly, no application has been filed in the court to have any of the disputed document compared for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert. It is not the case of the petitioner that the expert examined any document earlier and gave his opinion. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order of the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. This revision petition is filed only to protect the trial. I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The revision petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.