2013 Supreme(Raj) 1319
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Mohan Singh Parihar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal MISC. Petition No. 3026 of 2012.
Decided On : 17-05-2013
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:J. Gehlot, Advocate.
For the State: K.K. Rawal, Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondents:Shabir Khan, Advocate.
The handwriting expert's report is necessary for the accused to commence defense evidence, and the report must be available with the accused to facilitate the examination of the handwriting expert in defense.
Headnote:
Handwriting Comparison - Negotiable Instruments Act - The court upheld the trial court's decision to allow the accused's prayer to send the handwriting of the complainant for comparison to FSL with the admitted signatures of the complainant, rejecting the revisional court's decision that the handwriting of the complainant should be proved at the time of defense evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed a petition against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, which set aside the trial court's decision to send the handwriting of the complainant for comparison to FSL with the admitted signatures of the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the handwriting expert's report is necessary for the accused to commence defense evidence, and the revisional court's decision cannot be sustained.
Issues: The issue was whether the accused's prayer to send the handwriting of the complainant for comparison to FSL with the admitted signatures of the complainant was appropriately allowed by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The handwriting expert's report is necessary for the accused to commence defense evidence, and the report must be available with the accused to facilitate the examination of the handwriting expert in defense.
Final Decision: The impugned order passed by the revisional court was set aside, and the order passed by the trial court was upheld. The misc. petition was allowed.
JUDGMENT
1. - The present misc. petition has been filed by the accused. He is aggrieved against the order passed by Sessions Judge Jodhpur Metropolitan whereby he accepted the revision and had set aside the order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court had accepted the prayer of the accused petitioner to send the handwriting of the complainant for comparison to FSL with the admitted signatures of the complainant.
2. Briefly stated respondent-complainant had preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in which, he stated that petitioner had issued a cheque of Rs. 3 lack on account of amount advanced to the accused he stated when the cheque was presented, it had bounced due to insufficiency of the funds. On the complaint filed by the respondent no. 2, notice of accusation was served upon the petitioner-accused. Thereafter complainant stepped into witness box as P.W. 1. At that stage a prayer was made by the accused petitioner that the cheque along with receipts issued by the complainant be sent for comparison under Section 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to FSL. The prayer made by the accused was allowed by the trial Court.
3. Aggrieved against the same, complainant filed the revision petition. The revision was accepted by the revisional Court below on the ground that appropriate stage for the accused petitioner is to prove handwriting of the complainant at the time of defence evidence.
4. During the course of arguments, it has been admitted by counsel for the respondent that the statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The case is, now ripe for leading defence evidence. Before accused commence defence evidence, he must be armed with a report of an expert, so that on basis of the report, accused can call an expert in his defence evidence.
5. The report of the handwriting expert even if he is a Director, Dy.Director or Assistant Director of FSL is not per se admissible under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the handwriting expert necessarily has to be examined by the accused in defence. To facilitate the same, opinion of the handwriting expert in form of the report must be available with the accused to commence his defence evidence. Therefore, the order of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan whereby he had disturbed the well reasoned order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
6. Consequently, the impugned order passed by revisional Court is set aside and the order passed by the trial Court is upheld.
7. In view of above, the misc. petition is allowed, however, stay petition has been rendered infructuous.Petition Allowed.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document