Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This revision petition is directed against the Judgment and Orders of the learned Magistrate, convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [hereinafter referred to as "the N.I. Act" for short], directing him to pay a compensation of Rs.1,75,000-00 with a fine of Rs.5,000-00 and rigorous imprisonment for one year, in addition to the payment of fine, confirmed in Crl.A. No.137/2007 and also rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 293 Cr.P.C. r/w. Section 45 of the Evidence Act and under Sections 311 r/w. 391 Cr.P.C.

During the trial, the respondent was examined as P.W.1 and in his evidence Exs.P1 to 9 were marked. The petitioner examined himself as D.W.1 and a witness D.W.2 and in their evidence, documents Exs.D1 to 42 were marked.

The trial Court after hearing the parties and on appreciation of the evidence on record, convicted the petitioner and ordered him to pay the fine amount as stated above and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in default of payment of fine. The said Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan, wherein the petitioner had also filed applications under the provisions of Sections 311 r/w. 391 Cr.P.C. and under Sections 293 Cr.P.C. r/w. Section 45 of the Evidence Act, seeking reference of the disputed signature on the cheque to the handwriting expert on the ground that he has not put his signature on the cheque. Learned Sessions Judge under the impugned Judgment and Order has dismissed the appeal and rejected the said applications. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent all along.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bank account was opened by the petitioner in the year 1998 and the petitioner never issued any cheque to the respondent and the signature on it is not of the petitioner. Therefore, submits that an opportunity ought to have been given by the Court below for seeking experts opinion on the disputed signature. He submits that though applications were filed before the Sessions Court under Section 293 Cr.P.C., r/w. Section 45 of the Evidence Act praying to refer the disputed cheque for expert's opinion and under Sections 311 r/w. 391 Cr.P.C., praying to issue summons to the Advocate for examination on behalf of the accused. But, the applications were rejected without assigning any reasons and the order of the trial Court was affirmed.

6. Even in the appeal, it was the consistent version of the petitioner that the signature on the cheque is forged and therefore, he along with the appeal filed applications under Sections 311 r/w. 391 Cr.P.C. and Section 293 Cr.P.C. r/w. Section 45 of the Evidence Act to refer the signature for the opinion of the expert. The trial Court though has not assigned any reasons to reject the applications and it affirmed the Order of conviction and in the operative portion, made a mention that the applications stand rejected.