Crl. Revision. No. 1014 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1014 of 2010 Date of decision: 01.04.2010 Parminder Kumar son of Sham Lal r/o H.No. 6765, Coolranwal Wali Gali, Near Old Bus Stand, Bathinda. ....... petitioner Versus Mukesh Goyal s/o Parveen Goyal, r/o H.No. 303, Street No. ½, Sarabha Nagar, Bathinda. ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Sukhwinder S. Sudan, Advocate for the revision-petitioner. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 30.03.2000, rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, vide which it dismissed the application, filed by the petitioner (accused), for summoning Sham Lal Bansal, for giving his specimen handwriting. Crl. Revision. No. 1014 of 2010 -2- 2. I have heard the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 3. The Counsel for the revision -petitioner has submitted that Sham Lal Bansal, was summoned as a defence witness by the petitioner and he was examined. He has further submitted that the plea of the petitioner was that the cheque, Ex.C-1, was filled up by Sham Lal Bansal . He has further submitted that under these circumstances, the specimen signatures of Sham Lal Bansal, were required to be obtained for the purpose of comparison with the disputed handwriting over Ex.C-1. He has further submitted that an application for summoning him for giving his specimen signatures was submitted, when the case was fixed for defence evidence, but the same was illegally dismissed by the Court below. He has further submitted that the order, being perverse, is liable to be set aside. 4. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Sham Lal Bansal was summoned, as a witness, by the Crl. Revision. No. 1014 of 2010 -3- accused/petitioner. He was examined by him. He was also cross-examined by the Counsel opposite. In case, the petitioner had any doubt with regard to the handwriting over the cheque, in question, then he could make a separate application before the Court concerned, for obtaining his specimen handwriting for the purpose of comparison thereof. However, no such application was moved, at that time. It appears that such an application was moved by the petitioner, just with a view to delay the proceedings. Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was filed in January 2007. Even otherwise, taking the specimen handwriting of Sham Lal Bansal, for the purpose of comparison of handwriting on the cheque, in question, could not be of any help to the case of the petitioner. The complainant must have led evidence as to whether the cheque. in question, was issued by the petitioner/accused, in the discharge of his legally enforceable liability. During the course of the statement of Sham Lal Bansal, DW-1, he denied that the cheque, Ex.C-1, bore his handwriting. There is no illegality or perversity, in the order, impugned. The same is, therefore, liable to be upheld. Crl. Revision. No. 1014 of 2010 -4- 5. For the reasons, recorded above, the revision petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 6. The Registry is directed to comply with the order immediately. (SHAM SUNDER) April 01, 2010 JUDGE dinesh