1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Salag Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.373/2008 DATE OF ORDER :: March 25, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.J.S.Bhaleria, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: This criminal misc. petition is directed against the order dt. 24.7.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh (for short `the appellate court' hereinafter) in Cr.Appeal No.43/2006, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under section 391 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed for leading additional evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the order impugned. 2 A complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short `the Act' hereinafter) was filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga (for short `the trial court' hereinafter). On trial of the case, the trial court convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 18 months and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under section 391 Cr.P.C. was filed. The appellate court partly allowed the application by order impugned. However, declined to send the cheque in question for the opinion of handwriting expert on the ground that the cheque bears the signature of the petitioner and this fact has not been disputed by the petitioner. Section 118 of the Act provides that when signature on a cheque is not disputed, the presumption is drawn in favour of the holder of the cheque in due course and therefore, in my view, the appellate court was justified in declining the request of the petitioner to send the cheque for the opinion of handwriting expert. This controversy stands concluded by a decision of this 3 Court in Mangal Singh and Anr. Vs. M/s Khurana Chemicals 2006 (2) R.Cr.D. 396 (Raj.), wherein the accused filed an application for verifying the handwriting on the cheque from handwriting expert, however, the signature on the cheque in question therein has not been disputed. This Court held that the signature on the cheque has not been disputed. Even if the petitioner has any grievance in respect of handwriting on the cheque then the petitioner, when filed an application under Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act earlier on 15.3.2005, he could have also raised that grievance. This clearly shows that the petitioner has no grievance with regard to the handwriting on the cheque. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the order impugned would result in serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of any Court. The criminal misc. petition is, therefore, dismissed. [H.R.PANWAR],J. m.asif/- 4 S.B.Cr.Misc. Stay Petition No.628/2008 In S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.373/2008 Date of order : March 25, 2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr.J.S.Bhaleria, for the petitioner. Since the main petition has itself been dismissed, stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. m.asif/-