Criminal Misc. No.M-30830 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-30830 of 2009 Date of Decision:December 16, 2010 Adarsh Kumar ...........Petitioner Versus Jaskaran Singh Gill ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr. Vivek Goel,Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.) for setting aside order dated 30.8.2009 (Annexure P1) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot and order dated 10.10.2009 (Annexure P2) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Faridkot in complaint case No. 171 dated 2.6.2005 titled as "Jaskaran Singh Gill vs. M/s Chhibber Motors" under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,1881 (for short `the Act'). Petitioner is facing the trial for an offence under Section 138 of the Act. During the pendency of the trial, petitioner moved two applications for getting his hand writing compared from a handwriting and finger print expert with the writing on the body of the cheque and also to Criminal Misc. No.M-30830 of 2009 2 summon the record containing his specimen signatures in case titled as " Bhagwan Singh vs. Adarsh Chhibber" for comparison. Vide order dated 31.8.2009 both the applications were dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. The said order was upheld in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge dated 10.10.2009. Hence, the present revision petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Learned trial Court in paras 3 and 4 of its order has held as under:- “3. After hearing their respective submissions and from the pleading in the application and reply it is not disputed that accused/applicant admitted his signatures on the cheque but he wants to deny writing therein with the help of examination of expert. Accused/applicant now wants to give handwriting in the Court but firstly court has not prepared to create evidence for one party. Secondly, when accused/applicant admitted his signatures, then presumption is attached to the cheque and there is no necessity to cross-examine the expert to prove the factum of body writing. Thirdly, even if accused/applicant wants to examine expert then he must examine the expert with the help of already available material before institution of the present complaint which could be termed as specimen writing/signatures and accused/applicant cannot create evidence by giving handwriting or signatures. Accordingly, present application moved by accused/applicant is found to without any basis. Criminal Misc. No.M-30830 of 2009 3 4. Accused/applicant also pressed on another application for summoning of file, which is pending in the Court of Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot for comparison of handwriting by expert for obtaining specimens in the file. Accused/applicant has not given any reasoning that why the expert cannot examine the file in the other Court, where it is pending. Because accused/applicant is also party in that very complaint. As such, expert has right to inspect the file pending before that very Court and there is no necessity to summon the file in this Court, if expert wants to examine the file. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the present applications moved by the accused/applicant only for delaying tactics to further prolong the matter. Consequently, both the applications moved by accused/applicant shall stand dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the Case. Now to come upon 18.9.09 for defence evidence of the accused.” Learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 2 and 3 of its order has held as under:- “2. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that blank cheque was given by the accused to somebody else, who handed over the same to the complainant and the complainant filed the complaint on the basis of that cheque which was filled up by somebody else. He also argued that by proving that the body writing of the cheque is not in the hand of the accused he wants to prove his contention that blank cheque was issued by him. Criminal Misc. No.M-30830 of 2009 4 3. Under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 a person in possession of a blank negotiable instrument has an authority to fill up any amount and the person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument to the holder in due course for such amount. In view of this clear provision no case is made out in favour of the accused for permission to examine an expert because he has not disputed his signatures upon the cheque in question. The plea raised by the accused that a blank cheque was handed over by him to some other person appears to be an after thought. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed as the same is without any merit. Trial Court record be returned. The revision file be consigned.” The reasons given by the Courts below while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner are sound reasons. Petitioner had moved the application so that his handwriting be got compared with the writing on the body of the cheque. It is immaterial as to who has filled in the cheque . In case the cheque has been duly signed by the petitioner, the writing on the body of the cheque may be by executant of the cheque or by anybody else. Learned counsel has failed to point out any miscarriage of justice which would warrant interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge December 16, 2010 arya