HC Sends disputed cheque to Handwriting Expert for Fair Trial

Shashikant Shamaldas Patel vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)

While it is the case of the complainant that it was a cheque that was signed “in blank” while the facts suggest that the cheque amount was also noted in the cheque, which the complainant has disputed. It is his specific case that the cheque was given in the year 2011 while it was misused in 2018. Since there was no direction to pay the amount so stated to be mentioned in the cheque, the applicant has disputed the age of ink utilized for the signature of the applicant on the cheque and prayed for comparison of the ink used for text on the body of the cheque, alleging that the endorsement was not “in full” on the instrument. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar’s case (supra), the petitioner is required to be granted opportunity for adducing evidence keeping in mind the larger object of fair trial. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below deserve to be quashed and set aside.

For the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed. Both the impugned orders dated 23.08.2021 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Revision Application No.29 of 2021; and dated 04.03.2021 passed by the learned 5^th Additional Chief Magistrate, Gandhinagar below application Exhibit-32 in Criminal Case No.87 of 2019 are quashed and set aside. The trial Court concerned is directed to send the disputed cheque to F.S.L. for opinion of the Hand-writing Expert, as has been prayed for in the application Exhibit-32. All concerned to make sincere efforts to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. Rule is made absolute.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT

1. The petitioner is an accused in Criminal Case No.87 of 2019 filed by the respondent No.2 before the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Gandhinagar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the NI Act”). The petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Revision Application No.29 of 2021 whereby, the revisional Court rejected the application of the petitioner wherein he had made a prayer for sending the cheque to F.S.L. for opinion of the Hand-writing Expert and forensic science opinion qua the ageing and writing on the cheque.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.