& CT '••.••^•.f-r.r-' '••r:!~' INTMEHON'Bl^HlGHCXiUlCTORCH^ATTISGARM^ BlLASPUFfCG.G.') CR. M. P. N0. n;0 -n OF 20t0 -C7- PFnTlQNER .^^y ^I^Si^ •<1 ^ys^s^^ '^w'...^"^y^^ ^ :.^-""': :' • •-':':\^'-. Savitri Bai, Widow of Ramji Dewangan, aged ahoyt 57 years, R/o Village ManQhara, Tahsil Stmga, PoliGe iStatipn Simga, DistrictRajpyr(C,©.) VERSUS -Ghandanlal, S/o Ratanlal Katare, aged about 41 years, R/o Subhash Ward BMathapara, Police StatiQn BhaWapara, Town, Tahsil Bhathapara, District Raipur (C.G.) PETETION UNDEFlSgCTION4820FT-l-IECODECirCRrMlNAl.. PROGEDURE,t973 i KB B tft! !8R HIG^'ieOBR'KtOE' SmCrI^aEarcn^^ON'BI®fflB^|iGgN!NS>RA£M©HA^SHm^^S3t^^ Cr.M.PNo.7aC 2QlQ PETITIONER RBSPONDENT SavitriSai Versus^.1'. •"•.•.;'.'.;.' ..... Ghandaalal ^ ': . (Petition^i/Si482^o^tIlSAGr.P.et •ShTi;,P;P.:Sahu,^ecau^l®tsffi^P^^ ^Shn'Anand:Qupta,''eox^^I^^3®^respQnc^ •(SRK3SaQSBESs, t'Qss3i0S@Sr& ^^^^^LG;y^u^^;.;^t-^.:^ \' ••:^ ,1:-';-;'^.^' ?:':;r.- .."...;:••. ^j||^|^||jigB|^iSgJ§|8^%|| I^^.P.e..lias';'been:,;fil^^ ;'correptl Ss;':',§ffld:^?Taliiit^^f^!0rjie:E'^ :::; ^^itiQnal^'S^^ons'^Judge,,^;BHatapa^ •:'^:ansing:-,out,of.<)rder'i;dats(I':^^@l%:^^^^^^ • :;:'Firsf::,:Glas^;;;::Bhat^ara,^i1^ oytainmg^report^ofHand^^ :been,i^ected.:,T',,,^,;'^.,':',.,: :j.,,,^ 3. Subinission,.of learn^GQUnsetifgr^lgjlllietiffin^ ^emg::®roseGufed.-fi)F'allegea;iGOiniEuss^^ :of..the?lNegotiable;:.Instnaiments^3^^I|88I^ ^petiifiQn^'had'!:i^ued^a^he^e^ir^,Jf8yw mt^^SSSf^K Rs.2 lacs and when the cheque was presented in the Bank, the same was dishonoured. Leamed counsel for the petitioner argued that after filing of the complaint, the petitioner had taken a specific defence by submitting in writing that the cheque was never issued by the petitioner and the disputed cheque does not contain the signata-ire of the petitioner. During the course of trial, after the examination of complainant's and defence witnesses, an application for examination of the disputed cheque by the Hand Writing Expert was filed, but the same has been rejected by the trial Court, which order has been confirmed in revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that serious consequences would ensue in the prosecution opened against the .petitioner and therefore, the Courts below ought to have allowed petitioner's application for report of Hand Writing Expert regarding the signatures on the disputed cheque on the basis of which the complaint case has been filed. 4. On the other, learned counsel for the respondent subniits that the Courts below have rejected the application by takmg into consideration the fact that all through the examination of the complainant's witnesses as well as defence witnesses, no such application was made by the petitioner. He also submits that the Courts below have also taken into consideration that even in the evidence led by the defence, no such defence has been takep by the petitioner that the^cheque was never issued by her or that the disputed cheque does not contain her signature and that her signatures have been forged. Leamed counsel further argues that the application for calling the report of Hand Writing Expert filed at the time when the evidence is over and the case y^-w^^: '^"WSQ^S^S ^!^^^^^^^^l^f%^%^§1^^^^^ was fl^d fbr arguments, which clearty shdws thaf th bonafide and is only intended to delay theconclusion ofthe trial. 5. I have heard lean-ied coiinsel forthe parties and perused the records. 6. From the reply, which was filed by the petitioner before the Magistrate after complaint was filed, placed on record as Annexure P-5, it is disclosed that the petitioner specifically stated that she never issued any cheque in favour of the complainant and has specifically stated that the cheque does not contain her signatures. 7. True it is that it was open for the petitioner to move appropriate application for report of the Hand Writing Expert at earlier stages of the trial or at subsequent stage during the course of examination of defence witnesses, however, considering that the petitioner is facing a criminal trial and in the event she found guilty may be punished with imprisonment, it would not be proper to reject the &.pplication only on the ground of delay. As the petitioner had submitted her reply in the compliant case, as back as on 8.10.2008, wherein she had taken a specific defence that she did not issue cheque, nor the cheque contained her signature, it cannot be said that such defence is an afterthought and the application has been made only to delay the trial. 8. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme'Court in the case of Thiryven&adam PiUai_Vs^NavaneethanimaL-&another1 as also taking into consideration that the petitioner had taken a specific defence in his reply and that serious consequences may ensue including imprisonment of the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, in the larger interest of justice, it would be appropriate to give the 'AIR 2008 SC 1541 SW-1 Vattf- :f- ",^5'; Praveen petitioner one opportunity to get the disputed cheque examined through the Hand Writing Expert. 9. This petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 1.9.2010 passed by the Court below in revision is hereby set aside. The learned trial Court shall take appropriate steps in the matter of examination of the disputed cbeque by a Hand Writing Expert. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is directed that the trial shall be conduded within an outer limit of 4 months. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^ -•^w^^^ft +