S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.316/2010 Mohd. Razak Khan Vs. Ahmed Jaan Dated : 29.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Imran Khan, for the petitioner. *** By way of this criminal revision petition, the revisionist has impugned order dated 11th March, 2010 whereby the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) No.12, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissed the application of the accused revisionist filed under Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C., wherein he prayed to send the cheque to FSL for obtaining expert opinion to ascertain by whom the rest of the entries on cheque were filled in. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and carefully perused the impugned order. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the accused revisionist willfully gave a cheque to the non- petitioner, which was dis-honoured on account of in-sufficient funds. The learned counsel canvassed that the cheque was being misused by the non-petitioner and except the signature, rest of the entries were filled in by the non- petitioner, in the cheque. Learned trial Court dismissed the application filed under Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the cheque was willfully given by the accused revisionist and by whom rest of the entries were made, was immaterial. Learned counsel has cited one case of T.Nagappa VS. Y.R. Muralidhar reported in (2008) 5, SCC, 633 in support of his arguments and contended that in this case also the cheque was sent for obtaining the report of an expert to Forensic Science Laboratory. In the case of T.Nagappa (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it was not necessary to have any expert opinion on the question other than the following: “Whether the writing appearing in the said cheque on the front page is written on the same day and time when the said cheque was signed as “T.Nagappa” on the front page as well as on the reverse, or in other words, whether the age of the writing on Ext.P-2 on the front page is the same as that of the signature “T. Nagappa” appearing on the front as well as on the reverse of the cheque, Ext.P-2.” It is clear that the cheque was being ordered to be sent for obtaining expert opinion to ascertain the age of the cheque as also the signature of the writing on the cheque in dispute. The facts and circumstances of the case are altogether distinct. The learned counsel -3- for the revisionist has not come with the case that the cheque was given to the non-petitioner long back and after a lapse of time it is being misused by the non-petitioner. The learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. For the reasons stated above, the said revision petition being bereft of any merit stands dismissed at the threshold. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg