Smt. B.R. Dakshayani vs Smt. Leelavathi Bai

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—The Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 182/2009 before the XII Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore, and he is being prosecuted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the complaint filed by the Respondent-complainant. After the parties led evidence, the Petitioner-accused filed an application u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for referring the cheque in question to the forensic science laboratory to ascertain the age of the document, the signature and the handwriting found on the cheque, interalia on the ground that the cheque in question had been delivered to the complainant in the year 2005 itself as a security in respect of a chit transaction and subsequently, the said signed blank cheque delivered to the complainant has been misused by the complainant. The said application was opposed by the complainant. The learned Magistrate by a reasoned order dt. 12.10.2010 rejected the application In this petition filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure the Petitioner is seeking to quash the said order and direction to the learned Magistrate to refer the cheque in question to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

I have heard Sri. Sabastian, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the records produced. As could be seen from the order passed by the trial court, the parties have already led evidence. It is at that stage when the case was set down for arguments, the accused came out with an application to refer the cheque in question to Forensic Science Laboratory. The contention of the accused that the cheque in question relate to the year 2005 and it was handed over to the complainant as a blank cheque as security is to be proved by the accused by independent evidence. Learned Counsel is not in a position to place any scientific data to the effect that the age of the signature found on a cheque could be assessed scientifically. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the fact that the accused is required to substantiate his defence by independent evidence, I find no error in the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting the application. Therefore, the petition lacks merit and is, accordingly dismissed.