The court emphasized that the accused-petitioner's application appeared to have been filed in order to linger on the matter, and highlighted the delaying tactics adopted by the accused-petitioner.

H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code” hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 010.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sri Ganganagar (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Complaint Case No. 49/2003, whereby the application filed by the accused-petitioner seeking opinion of the handwriting expert on the cheque in question came to be dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision.

2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the signature on the cheque in issue has not been disputed by the petitioner but the petitioner only directed the handwriting on the cheque whereby the amount and the name have been filled up.

3. Learned Counsel for the complainant submits that in the instant case, after service of notice of dishonour of the cheque, a complaint was filed on 15.06.2002. Thereafter the trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(for short, “the Act” hereinafter) and framed the charge. When the matter came at the stage of recording statement of the accused-petitioner under Section 313 of the Code, after making statement under Section 313 of the Code, the accused-petitioner filed the application. Learned Counsel for the complainant further submits that earlier also, on various occasions, similar applications were made, including the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for supply of copy of the bill and though that application was allowed but it was the accused-petitioner who was in possession of the original bill which he did not produce before the trial Court for examination by the handwriting expert despite several opportunities were granted to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the complainant has filed a synopsis showing the delaying tactics adopted by the accused-petitioner.

4. From the perusal of the synopsis produced by the learned Counsel for the complainant, it appears that the cheque in question, which bears the signature of the petitioner, was presented in the bank on 06.05.2002 and on being dishonoured, a statutory notice demanding the cheque amount was sent on 20.05.2002. Despite notice, the petitioner failed to pay the cheque amount. A complaint was filed on 15.06.2002. The trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Act on 06.09.2002. The petitioner appeared before the trial Court on 06.05.2003. Charges were framed on 29.06.2004. The complainant appeared before the trial Court and he was examined as PW. 1 on 23.07.2004. The evidence of the complainant was completed on 27.07.2004. The statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code was recorded on 21.08.2004 and thereafter the matter was adjourned at the request of the petitioner for producing defence evidence, however, no evidence in defence was produced. After availing several opportunities, ultimately the petitioner made an application on 212.2004 before the trial Court that he does not wish to produce any evidence in defence and the matter was fixed for final arguments. Thereafter the petitioner failed to appear and jumped the bail. After summoning, the accused appeared on 25.02.2005 and he was released on bail. On 15.03.2005, the petitioner moved an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for getting the documents. i.e., copies of the bills verified by the handwriting expert, which was allowed. On 02.06.2005, the petitioner moved an application for calling the original bills. The original bills were in possession of the petitioner but he failed to produce the same despite several adjournments. On 04.08.2005, a specific direction was given by the trial Court to the petitioner to produce Exhibit D-5 and Exhibit D-6 within 15 days but despite this direction, the petitioner failed to produce the documents. On