Gujarat High Court
Ashish vs State on 8 October, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/505/2010 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 505 of 2010
=========================================================
ASHISH
CHIMANALAL PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
VIRAL V DAVE for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KARTIK PANDYA, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 08/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The petitioner is the original accused. He has challenged two separate orders both dated 14.9.2010 by which learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the applications exh.13 and exh.14 filed by the petitioner. Criminal Case No. 2438/2007 has been filed by respondent no.2 complaining of dishonour of cheques issued by the petitioner.
During the course of trial, the petitioner moved application exh.13 on 13.9.2010 requested the Court that cheque in question be given for handwriting expert's opinion contending that :
I firmly declare that Kamalsinh T. Ahluwalia Written against pay & A/c. Payee written on Cheque are not written by me. I suspect, Mr Kamalsinh T. Ahluwalia or Ronak Ahluwalia of having done this forgery in my Cheque in question This application came to be dismissed by the learned Magistrate on
14.9.2010.
On 17.9.2010, petitioner had moved another application exh.14 and requested for summoning of large number of details and documents on record including papers of case filed by Kamalsinh Ahluwalia against one Paresh Patel, Some of the opinion of handwriting expert in the said case, cross examination and several deposition of that case. He also prayed for Narco analysis, polygraph test, Brain Mapping, lie detection test etc. of witnesses. This application came to be dismissed by separate order passed by the the Magistrate also on 14.9.2010.
Both these orders are under challenge in this petition.
Ideally the petitioners, should have filed two separate petitions. Without going into technicalities, insofar as order below exh.14 is concerned, I find that petitioner had not showed any relevance whatsoever for summoning large number of documents as also for carrying out brain mapping, lie detection test etc. Counsel for the petitioner was not able to demonstrate how the other case was connected with the case on hand before the Magistrate. Learned Magistrate has therefore, rightly rejected the prayers made therein.
Coming to the question of prayer made in application exh.13, learned Magistrate has given detailed reasons for not accepting the request in his impugned order. He has stated that petitioner had consistently adopted delaying tactics. He was previously given time on numerous occasions for engaging advocate. He also had taken undue long time for carrying out cross examination of the complainant.
His further statement was also recorded on 21.5.2010 in which he stated that contents of the cheque are not in his handwriting. He also stated that he desired to give evidence and examine the witnesses in his defence. He however did not give list of witnesses. In short, learned Magistrate was of the opinion that petitioner is not right in praying for sending the cheque for handwriting expert's opinion. He is only adopting delay tactics. From the record, it clearly emerges that petitioner has not disputed the cheque in question. He only at belated stage, after wasting time contended that some of the contents in body of the cheque are not in his handwriting.
To my mind, in facts of the case, learned Magistrate committed no error in rejecting the application of the petitioner for sending the cheque for handwriting expert's opinion.
Petition is dismissed.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (raghu) Top