Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—The accused petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.6.2009 passed by the learned trial court whereby his application under Section 73 of the Evidence Act read with Section 243(2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

2. On perusal of the order impugned, it is revealed that the application has been rejected primarily on the ground of delay. It is said that at a later stage of the trial, the instant application has come to be filed by the accused. However, the accused had filed the application before the trial court with the averment that he had only signed the cheque but had not made other entries in his own hand writing. The other entries in respect of the amount, date and name have not been filled-up by the petitioner and in these circumstances, he had requested that a report from the hand writing expert be obtained so as to unfold the truth.

3. Before this court also, learned counsel for the respondent has reiterated the contention raised before the trial court that it was the accused who had made all the entries in the cheque, including the signature in his own hand writing and the application had been filed by the accused after an inordinate delay.

4. This court has c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document