Crl. Rev.No. 3157 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Rev.No. 3157 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision :- 29.4.2010 Kharaiti Garg .... Petitioner Versus Dharam Pal. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. H.S.Rakhra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Gurdev Singh, J. Heard. This revision petition has been filed by Kharaiti Garg – petitioner vide which he has challenged the order dated 18.8.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul, vide which his application under Sections 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for adducing additional evidence was dismissed. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against Dharam Pal – respondent/accused in which he alleged that the accused issued Cheque No. 914901 dated 9.3.2005 for Rs.5,25,000/- drawn at State Bank of Patiala, which on presentation to the said banker was dishonored as the account was closed by the accused. He failed to pay the amount of that cheque inspite of the issuance of the statutory notice. On the basis of the preliminary evidence produced by the complainant, the accused was summoned to stand his trial for the afore-said offence. On his appearance in the Court notice of the Crl. Rev.No. 3157 of 2009 (O&M) -2- offence was given to him, to which he did not plead guilty. Complainant produced his evidence in support of the contentions made in the complaint. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and he was called upon to enter on his defence. He examined Anil Kumar handwriting and finger-print expert PW-2 in order to prove that the cheque allegedly issued by him does not bear his signature. It was only thereafter that the complainant came with the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for expert report. In that application, no prayer was made by the complainant for examining any witness in additional evidence or for producing some documents in the additional evidence. It has been contended in paras No.2 and 3 of that application that there are number of receipts issued by the accused under his signatures, which are fit for comparison and he is habitual in changing his signatures and that he (complainant) wants the comparison of signature on the cheque with the signatures on those receipts and that the same is necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. When it cannot be made out from the contents of the application as to what type of evidence the complainant wants to produce, it cannot be held that the evidence is essential to the just decision of the case and that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C is to be allowed. Even if it is assumed that the prayer of the complainant is for examining the document expert, it cannot be held that a case for additional evidence is made out. He had the first opportunity for proving that the cheque in question bear the signature of the accused. In case he wanted to prove that fact through some document expert, he should have examined Crl. Rev.No. 3157 of 2009 (O&M) -3- him at that time. He cannot be allowed to produce that evidence after the accused has produced evidence in his defence for proving that a cheque in question does not bear his signature. There is no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. April 29, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge