When an accused disputes their signature on a cheque in a Negotiable Instrument Act case, the court may order an examination by a handwriting expert if the accused raises doubts about the genuineness of the signature at an early stage and the banker testifies that they did not verify the signature before dishonoring the cheque.

JUDGMENT

Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Jodhpur, (hereinafter to be referred as 'the revisional court'), whereby the criminal revision petition No.163/2018 preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The aforesaid revision petition was filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.9, Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'trial court') in criminal original case No.830/2015, whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act has been dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act initiated at the instance of the respondent.

4. The petitioner has moved an application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act with a prayer to send the cheque in question for examination by the handwriting expert while claiming that the cheque in question does not contain her signature and the same is forged one.

5. The trial court has rejected the said application on two grounds, firstly, that the cheque has not been returned by the bank on the ground of dissimilarities in the signature of the petitioner but has returned on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the petitioner. The second reason given by the trial court is to the effect that on 06.02.2016, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., 1973 before the trial court and in that application, she has specifically stated that the petitioner has already paid the due amount to the complainant in between the date of handing him over the cheque and presentation of the same in the bank.

6. The trial court is of the opinion that in the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C , 1973 the petitioner had admitted that she has given cheque in question to the respondent and she has not stated in her application that the said cheque does not contain her signature.

7. Being aggrieved with rejection of the application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act by the trial court, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, however, the revisional court while agreeing with the reasons given by the trial court for rejecting the application filed by her under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and affirmed the said order, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to produce the evidence of handwriting expert in her defence at appropriate stage.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the petitioner has disputed her signature over the disputed cheque, the trial court is bound to send the same to the handwriting expert for examination. It is contended that the petitioner has denied her signature on the cheque in question and in such a situation, the only course left with the trial court is to send the cheque for examination by the handwriting expert and such prayer of the petitioner cannot be rejected in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyani Baskar vs. M.S. Sampoornam reported in (2007) 2 SCC 258.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore prayed that the impugned orders passed by the courts below be set aside and the trial court be directed to send the cheque in question for examination by the handwriting expert.

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

11. It is not in dispute that prior to filing of the application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., 1973 before the trial court on 06.02.2016, wherein she has specifically stated that in between the dates when the petitioner handed over the cheque in question to the respondent and date of presentation of the said cheque