IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MMO No. 158 of 2011 Date of decision: 23.09.2011 Vinod Prasad Tandon …Petitioner. Versus Sardar Darshan Singh ...Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 2.8.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib in Criminal Case No. 579/1 of 2006 . The respondent has filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. The case was fixed on 4.3.2011 for defence evidence. The petitioner filed an application dated 16.2.2011 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the cheque Ex.C-1 dated 18.8.2006 to the handwriting expert for his opinion whether the signatures of the accused, amount, name of Darshan Singh, date filled therein are of the same _____________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 date and handwriting of the same person. The application was opposed by the respondent. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application on 2.8.2011, hence this petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is the case of the petitioner that except for signatures on the cheque Ex.C-1 rest of the writing including date on the cheque are not of the petitioner and thus have been fraudulently written by the respondent on the cheque. He has submitted that in order to determine the real controversy between the parties the opinion of the expert is necessary. 3. The complaint was filed in the year 2006. Thereafter, the complainant led the evidence. The petitioner has not clearly stated in the petition that he put this defence to the complainant when complainant appeared in the witness box nor copy of statement of complainant recorded in the court below has been placed on record. In the application, no doubt, the petitioner has stated that it is his defence that these writings were written by the respondent on the blank cheque but in the application he has not stated that this defence was put to the respondent when he appeared in the witness box. The petitioner was given opportunity to lead evidence and at that stage, the petitioner filed the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. 4. The complaint is pending since 2006. The belated filing of the application indicates that the application is not bonafide. The trial Magistrate has considered the application and has noticed some judgments in the impugned order on the point that even if the 3 handwriting on the cheque other than the signatures is of some other person and in different ink that makes no difference while appreciating the case of the complainant. The petitioner has not denied his signatures on the cheque Ex.C-1. It is not necessary that handwriting is always to be proved through expert. On the contrary, handwriting expert opinion is not conclusive. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Magistrate has not committed any jurisdictional error, therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Cr.M.P. No. 622 of 2011 Disposed of in view of dismissal of the main petition. September 23, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.