ORDER :

Chandra Kumar Songara, J.

Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner against the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.20, Jaipur Metropolitan, Headquarter, Chomu (herein-after referred to as 'the Revisional Court'), in Criminal Revision No.50/2019, whereby the revision petition filed by petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.22, Jaipur Metropolitan, Headquarter Chomu dismissing the application under Section 45 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 filed by the petitioner with cost of Rs.1000/-, was confirmed.

2. Relevant facts, in brief, of the present case are that the complainant-respondent has lodged a complaint (Annexure-1) against the petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and submitted his affidavit in evidence. In cross-examination, question was put to the complainant that payment of said cheque was given vide Receipt dated 10.06.2015 (Exhibit-D/2) and it contains signature of complainant. An application was filed by the petitioner under section 45 of Indian EVIDENCE ACT on 03.05.2019 stating therein that during cross-examination, the receipt was exhibited as Exhibit-D/2 and executed by the complainant for receiving the cheque amount but the complainant denied about his signature on the receipt. A prayer was also made that signature of complainant be examined by a handwriting expert and compare it on Exhibit-D/2 and on the complaint. The trial Court, vide its order dated 25.06.2019 dismissed the application filed by petitioner with cost of Rs.1000/- (Annexure-3). The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order dated 25.06.2019, preferred a revision petition before the Revisional Court, which was also dismissed vide its order dated 05.09.2019 (Annexure-4). Hence, this petition.

3. Contentions put-forth by learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner are that the impugned orders passed by both the learned Courts below are legally not sustainable, being contrary to provisions of law & material evidence available on record. Bare Perusal of Receipt (Exhibit-D/2) reveals that it contains signature of complainant and the complainant had received the cheque amount as well as interest from the petitioner in the presence of two witnesses and on receipt thereof, cheque number has also been mentioned. The complainant has also not objected for sending the documents for examination to the F.S.L. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition may be allowed and the impugned orders passed by both the learned Courts below be quashed & set aside. It is further prayed that the application filed by petitioner under section 45 of Indian EVIDENCE ACT be also allowed directing the learned trial Court to send the Receipt (Exhibit-D/2) produced by petitioner for examination to the handwriting expert.

4. During the course of arguments, in support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner, has placed reliance upon the following judgments :-

(i) Krishna & Others v. Krishnaveni & Others , AIR 1997 SC 987 ,

(ii) Mrs. Kalyani Baskar v. .Mrs. M.S. Sampornam, (2007) 1 WLC S.C. 239,

(iii) Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others , AIR 2009 SC 1032 ,

(iv) O.P. Sharma v. Ashok Bohara , 2012 (1) WLC 154 RHCB Jaipur and

(v) Hanuman Sahay Sharma v. Manish Dhamani, 2013 (1) WLC 56 RHCB Jaipur.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant-