Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Lal vs Arjun Singh on 14 November, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2005(1)ALD(CRI)19, 2004CRILJ1723
ORDER M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code') prays for quashing order dated 6-11-2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana declining the prayer of the petitioner seeking permission to adduce evidence by way of producing a handwriting expert. It was further prayed in the application that the handwriting expert be permitted to take necessary photographs by inspecting the file to enable the petitioner-accused to prove that Bill, Exhibit P-8 has not been signed by him.
2. Brief facts of the case which have led to the filing of the instant petition are that the complainant Arjun Singh filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') against the petitioner-accused alleging that the goods were supplied to the petitioner accused by him and Bill, Exhibit P-8 issued to the petitioner-accused which was duly signed by the petitioner-accused. The petitioner-accused has denied his signatures on Bill, Exhibit P-8 by filing written statement and also in the statement made before the Magistrate on oath on 14-8-2001. After his statement, an application was moved seeking permission to produce the handwriting expert for taking necessary photographs by inspecting the file. The application has been dismissed vide impugned order and the operative part of the order reads as under :--
"After giving my careful consideration to contentions of rival parties, I find that statement of accused in present complaint has already been recorded on 14-8-2001. After that case was fixed for defence evidence and counsel for accused has already availed enough opportunities to conclude his defence evidence but not a single witness was produced by accused to prove his version and after availing enough opportunities the present application has been moved on 4-3-2002. So, after the perusal of file. I find that counsel for accused has already availed one year for producing defence evidence. Moreover, the bill Ex. P-8 mentioned in application, which the accused wants to prove in present complaint seems to be irrelevant as this is a complaint filed by complainant against accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in which cheque, which was received by complainant was dishonoured on the ground of 'Account closed'. So, proving of Bill Ex. P-8 through Handwriting expert that it was not signed by accused Darshan Lal has no relevancy in present complaint in hand. So, it seems delaying tactics on the part of accused. So, present application is dismissed. Counsel for accused is given one opportunity to conclude entire defence evidence.
Sd/-
Abshul Berry, PCS Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana
3. Mr. P. S. Khurana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that according to the well established principles, the liability of the petitioner accused cannot be established unless it is shown that the cheque was issued in lieu of the goods purchased vide Bill, Exhibit P-8. According to the learned counsel, if Bill, Exhibit P-8 is found to be without the signatures of the petitioner-accused, then there was no question of issuing any cheque and no liability of the petitioner accused would arise, learned counsel has pointed out that in the written statement as well as in the statement made on oath before the Court, a consistent stand has been taken by the petitioner accused that Bill, Exhibit P-8 did not bear his signatures and the whole case of the complainant Arjun Singh is falsified.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned order, I am of the considered view that this petition is liable to be dismissed because the complaint against the petitioner accused has been filed under Section 138 of the Act with the allegation that the cheque received by the complainant Arjun Singh was dishonoured on the ground of 'Account closed'. Moreover, the petitioner-accused has already availed a number of opportunities to conclude his defence evidence but he failed to produce even a single witness. The bill, Exhibit P-8 is not necessary to be proved because it seems to be irrelevant for the purposes of concluding whether the cheque was dishonoured or not. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. The petition is thus liable to be dismissed.
5. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.