Criminal Misc. No.M-26825 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-26825 of 2010 Date of decision : 13.9.2010 Jaspal Singh .....Petitioner Versus Mohinder Singh ...Respondent Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. S. S.SARON, J. The petitioner, who is respondent in the complaint filed by Mohinder Singh (respondent herein) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 assails the order dated 9.7.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. The petitioner filed an application (Annexure P-1) for taking hand-writing of the complainant in order to get the same compared with the hand-writing said to have been made by the respondent-complainant in a copy of the note book which is presently on the file of the trial Court as Mark-A for comparison from a hand-writing Expert. The respondent- complainant filed his reply Annexure P-2. The learned Trial Magistrate vide her impugned order dated 9.7.2010 (Annexure P-3) has dismissed the said application. It was, inter-alia, observed that the document-the comparison of which was sought did not show that it had any bearing with the cheque in dispute. The learned Magistrate further observed that the document, the comparison of which was sought, was nothing more than a loosely maintained account and did not exude any credence. Even if the entries in the document were presumed to be correct even then the plea of accused would not get substantiated in any manner. Besides, the right of defence of an accused in terms of Section 243 (2) of the Code of Criminal Misc. No.M-26825 of 2010 -2- Criminal Procedure it was observed was not an absolute one. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the case at some length submitted that he limits his prayer to comparison of the document Mark A on the file of the trial Court with the admitted or accepted hand writing of the complainant-respondent from the record of the trial Court itself and the order dated 9.7.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned trial Magistrate should not be taken to have foreclosed the right of the petitioner for the said purpose. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, in my view, the learned Magistrate has rightly declined the application (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner for taking specimen hand-writing of the petitioner for the purpose of comparison with the document Mark A on the file of the trial Court. Even learned counsel for the petitioner does not assail the same as he has limited his prayer to the comparison of the document Mark-A with admitted or accepted hand writing of the complainant- respondent already on record. The order that has been passed by the learned Magistrate does not in my view foreclose the right of the petitioner to file an application for getting it compared with the admitted hand-writing of the complainant-respondent which is available on the record of the trial Court. Therefore, for the said purpose, the petitioner may, if so advised, file a necessary application before the learned trial Magistrate itself who shall consider the same in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observations made herein. With the above observations, while upholding the impugned order (Annexure P-3), the Criminal Misc. application stands disposed of accordingly. September 13, 2010 (S.S.SARON) Pka JUDGE