ORDER :

Heard.

1) The petitioner has assailed the order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District- Korea (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.43/2022, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner/accused has been dismissed and the order dated 17.06.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.208/2018 parties being ‘Indrajeet Sen vs. Smt. Rajshreee Sharma’ has been affirmed, whereby an application moved by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was rejected.

2) The facts of the present case are that the respondent/complainant filed a Complaint Case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’) before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh inter alia on the ground that in discharge of liability, a cheque of Rs.9,50,000/- was issued by the petitioner in favor of the complainant on 25.04.2018. The complainant presented the cheque on 30.04.2018 and the same was dishonored on the ground of insufficient funds. Thereafter, a mandatory demand notice was issued and when the petitioner did not refund the amount, a complaint case was filed on 18.05.2018. The evidence of the complainant was recorded on 14.01.2020 and thereafter, on 21.03.2022, an application was moved by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking the opinion of a handwriting expert to examine the signature on the subject cheque as the petitioner has denied his signature over the disputed cheque. The respondent filed the reply and denied the averments made in the application.

3) Learned Trial Court vide order dated 17.06.2022 rejected the application moved by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act on the ground that the Bank has not raised any objection with regard to the signature of the petitioner and therefore, there is no need to take the opinion of the handwriting expert.

4) The petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh and vide order dated 31.10.2022, the revision has been dismissed affirming the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. It is also observed that for the first time aforesaid ground has been raised in the application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and prior to that even at the time of the cross-examination of the complainant, this plea was not taken.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the written complaint was made before the Police with regard to the misuse of the cheque. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to bear the expenses of the examination of the disputed cheque by a handwriting expert and the right of the petitioner cannot be curtailed. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of G. Someshwar Rao Vs. Samineni Nage-Shwar Rao and another, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2050.

6) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent would submit that the cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds and at the fag end of the trial an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act has been moved, whereas, this plea was not taken by the petitioner at any point of time. He would submit that earlier an application under Section 243 of the Cr.P.C. was moved for calling a handwriting expert as a defence witness and the same was rejected vide order dated 26.11.2022 by the learned Trial Court. He would further submit that the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has also been recorded but this plea has not been taken. He has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matters of Sadhna Pandey Vs. P.C. Jain, 2014 ACD 517 (MP) and Sameer Chaturvedi Vs. Kuldeep Chaturvedi, reported in AIR Online 2018 MP 1533.

7) With regard to the complaint made by the petitioner against the complainant before the Police Authorities, he