The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and not due to dissimilarity of signatures, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's application to send the cheque to a handwriting expert.

1. - This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.6.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision No.6/2014 preferred on behalf of the petitioner while challenging the order dated 27.1.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby the application filed by the petitioner for sending the cheque in question to the handwriting expert has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in a proceeding pending against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the trial court, the petitioner moved an application with the prayer for sending a cheque in question to the handwriting expert while alleging that the signature on the said cheque are not of him. The said application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the trial court while observing that the cheque was not dishonoured by the bank on the ground of dissimilarity of signature, but was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the bank account of the petitioner.

3. Learned trial court has also observed that the petitioner has not replied to the notice sent by the complainant and has also not disputed the fact that he has no account in the bank. Learned trial court further observed that if the signature on the said cheque is not of the petitioner, then the petitioner can very well prove the said fact during the course of submitting his defence. After observing this, the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner. The revisional court after considering the arguments raised by the petitioner has also dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order passed by the trial court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the signature on the cheque are not of the petitioner and, therefore, the courts below have erred in not sending the cheque to the handwriting expert for verification of the signature of the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders.

6. It is not in dispute that a notice was served upon the petitioner by the complainant and the petitioner has not replied to the said notice and has not raised any objection with regard to his signature. Apart from this, the bank has not dishonoured the cheque on the ground of dissimilarity of signatures of the account holder, but has dishonoured the same on the ground of insufficiency of fund in the bank account of the petitioner.

7. Looking to above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed.

*******