The main legal point established in the judgment is that the supplementary document, the loan agreement, was not crucial to the case as the main issue was the dishonour of the cheque. The court emphasized the duty of the complainant to prove the document in accordance with the law when it is denied by the accused.

JUDGMENT

K. Natarajan, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order passed by the XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C. No. 24402/2018 dated 16.08.2022 on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent is the complainant before the trial Court who filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act for having dishonour of the cheque for Rs. 10.00 lakhs said to be issued by the petitioner to the respondent. After taking the cognizance, the trial Court issued summons to this petitioner, he appeared before the Court and denied the charges. Thereafter, the complainant examined himself as witness, got marked the documents and the case of the accused was one of the total denial, wherein, the complainant has produced and marked Ex.P.12-the loan agreement which is said to be executed by the petitioner-accused on 23.09.2017 which was denied by the petitioner in the cross-examination and also the petitioner is said to be produced Ex.D.7-the endorsement issued by the Bar Association stating that the stamp paper (non-judicial paper) said to be prepared a loan agreement by the complainant was not at all sold in the year 2017, the alleged date of its execution and it was sold only in the year 2018 i.e., on 03.05.2018. Based upon this document, the petitioner counsel filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for referring the Ex.P.12-loan agreement to the FSL for expert opinion which was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, he is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this document i.e., loan agreement is essential for considering and this document is not at all executed by the petitioner-accused in favour of the complainant and it is created document. In order to prove the age of writings, it is necessary to refer Ex.P.12 to the FSL for obtaining expert opinion and if the application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the complainant case. Hence, prayed for allowing the same. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Bombay High Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has objected the petition and contended that the case is based upon the cheque which is admitted by the accused in the evidence and therefore, the question of referring the Ex.P.12-loan agreement which is a supplementary document is not necessary to refer the same to the Forensic Science Lab and there is no reason assigned by the accused in the application for referring Ex.P.12 to the FSL. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application. He also contended that the application filed by the petitioner after the evidence and also arguments of the complainant before the trial Court and the only intention to drag the matter, this application came to be filed. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition. The point that arise for my consideration is :

"Whether the document-Ex.P.12 is required to be referred to the FSL for getting expert opinion and the order of the trial Court is liable to be interfered with?

6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is an accused before the trial Court facing the trial under section 139 N.I. Act, where, it is alleged by the respondent-complainant that the cheque was issued by this petitioner on 06.06.2018 to discharge the loan as per the loan agreement dated 23.09.2017. After taking cognizance, the trial Court commenced the evidence, the complainant already examined as PW.1 and has got marked the cheque and Ex.P.12-the loan agreement dated 23.09.2017 also marked by the complainant where the accused is