Cr. Rev 1063 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr. Rev 1063 of 2011 Date of decision: 4.7.2011 Raminder Kaur petitioner vs Tejinder Singh respondent Present:- Mr.KS Jetley, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner is facing criminal trial u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( for short ' the Act') for having issued two cheques of Rs.2.50 lacs each on 18.5.2008 and 15.9.2008 to complainant- respondent Tejinder Singh. The said cheques were allegedly dishonoured when presented. The complainant- respondent has relied upon an acknowledgment receipt Ex. C 3 bearing signatures of accused- petitioner wherein she has admitted to have received a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs and having issued two cheques of Rs.2.50 lacs each to discharge her liability. The trial is stated to be at defence evidence stage. An application filed u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for getting the signatures on acknowledgment receipt compared with the signatures on the cheque and the signatures of the petitioner in the court record file from the hand writing expert, stands dismissed vide impugned order dated 7.2.2011. The trial court has dismissed the application inter alia on the ground the petitioner has not, in cross-examination of the complainant or cross-examination of Harvinder Cr. Rev 1063 of 2011 2 Singh, denied her signatures on the acknowledgment Ex.C-3. She has also not taken any plea in her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. That document Ex.C-3 does not bear her signatures and that she has taken up the plea that her signatures are not there on the writing Ex.C-3 for the first time through an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the photocopy of the document Ex.C-3, which has been appended with the petition as Annexure P-5. Without expression of any opinion on merits, it is sufficient to observe that the signatures appearing on Ex.C-3 and the power of attorney of the petitioner in favour of her counsel tally on bare perusal but prima facie this court is of the opinion that in proceedings u/s 138 of the Act, a document in the shape of acknowledgment is not of much important. The petitioner appears to have not specifically denied her signatures on the disputed cheques. The application appears to have been filed merely to delay the proceedings. The trial court has given adequate reasons for dismissal of the application. No ground is made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the impugned order. Learned counsel has submitted that in Annexure P-3, reply to the notice dated 30.9.2008, the petitioner has specifically denied to have ever issued any cheque and had specifically taken up the plea that her two cheques had been stolen from the house and that by making forgeries and having hatched a conspiracy the complainant has submitted the disputed cheques. I have considered the said contentions of counsel for the petitioner. It is always open to the petitioner to rely upon Annexure P-3 as defence document and avail the benefit, if any, subject to the satisfaction of the court. Dismissed. Cr. Rev 1063 of 2011 3 Nothing mentioned in the order will prejudice the right of the petitioner during trial. Any thing said in this order is merely to decide the present revision petition. July 4 , 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE