1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Smt. Suman Gupta Vs. Narendra Kumar Sharma & anr. SB CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1554/2010. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. DATE OF ORDER: 10th August, 2010. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Anshuman Saxena for the petitioner. Mrs.Rekha Madnani PP for the State. BY THE COURT:- By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17th July, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur city, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.3/2010 (Smt. Suman Gupta Vs. Narendra Kumar Sharma) whereby the application filed by the accused-petitioner under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for examining disputed cheques from the FSL has been dismissed. Necessary facts for the disposal of the present case are that the complainant-respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (here-in-after to be referred as, 'the Act') on account of dishonour of three cheques involving in all Rs.15 lacs. The learned trial court after completion of trial vide its order dated 16th March, 2010 convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the 2 offence under section 138 of the Act. The accused was sentenced to one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.18 lacs, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. The petitioner feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur city, Jaipur which was transferred for disposal to the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur city, Jaipur. During the pendency of appeal, an application under section 45 of the Evidence Act was moved before the learned appellate court to send the disputed cheques to the FSL for examination. The learned appellate court after hearing both sides, rejected the application by a detailed order dated 17th July, 2010 on the ground that the accused-petitioner has admitted his signature on the cheques and no such prayer was made during the course of trial and the application was moved only to delay the matter. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since for security purpose the cheques were handed over to the respondent and those cheques have been misused, therefore, only admission of the signature on the cheques could not have been a valid reason to reject the prayer made by the petitioner to send the disputed cheques to FSL for examination. I have considered the submissions made before me and have perused the impugned order as well as the statement and the cross-examination of the complainant. 3 It is not necessary to comment upon the statement and cross-examination conducted from the complainant of the case in the present matter. It is suffice to say that no such request was made by the petitioner during the course of trial and signature on the cheques have been admitted and the reason given by the petitioner that as security of the goods purchased, the cheques were given, prima-facie, does not appear to be a convincing reason, therefore, in my opinion, the appellate court has committed no illegality in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner. This misc. petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed summarily. In the result, this misc. petition is dismissed summarily. (S.P. PATHAK),J BBLM