The main legal point established in the judgment is that once an accused has admitted the signatures on the cheque, he cannot escape his liability on the ground that the same had not been signed by him.

JUDGMENT

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - In this petition the petitioners have assailed the order dated 15.02.2020 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridabad, whereby two applications viz. (i) under Section 45 read with Section 73 of Negotiable Instruments Act for examination of the hand writing expert and for the report of the FSL and (ii) under Section 311 of Cr. P.C. for calling the witness Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 (cited by the complainant) for examination have been dismissed.

2. Respondent-complainant filed a complaint dated 22.03.2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Ld. JMIC, Faridabad against the petitioners alleging that the goods were supplied to the petitioners and a sum of Rs. 22,51,874/- was due to them. In order to discharge its liability towards part payment, petitioner no. 3 issued a cheque bearing No.000633 dated 20.01.2017 for Rs. 11,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahendra Bank, New Delhi, which was dishonored vide memo dated 03.02.2017 with the remarks "Funds Insufficient".

3. On being summoned the petitioners put in appearance beforethe Ld. Magistrate. When the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioners, the petitioners moved an application for keeping the proceedings in abeyance pending the decision in case titled as "Nitin Sethi and Anr. Vs. M/s Devender Kalra and others" which had been filed by them before the Court at New Delhi. The Ld. JMIC, Faridabad dismissed the said application on 18.05.2019. Vide the same order it also closed the defence of the petitioners.

4. The petitioners assailed the order dated 18.05.2019 by filing CRM-M-26089 of 2019. The petitioners did not press their prayer for keeping the proceedings in abeyance. The petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2019 with direction to Ld. JMIC to give one effective opportunity1 to the petitioners to lead their defence evidence subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs.

5. The operative part of the order is reproduced below:

"Having heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner this Court finds that even before the Trial Court started adjourning the case on joint request, the opportunity was granted to the petitioners to lead their evidence in defence. The order dated 8th January, 2019 would show that even the last opportunity was granted to the petitioners to produce their evidence in defence. Therefore this Court does not find any illegality or perversity with the order on the face of it warranting any interference with the same so far as the merits of the case are concerned.

However since the petitioners are accused of an offence for which they can suffer even imprisonment, therefore, lest the petitioners should have any grievance, though mistaken, that they have not been granted fair opportunity to defend themselves against the charge, it would not be unjustified to grant the one more opportunity to lead their evidence in defence, though by putting them to some financial burden.

In view of the above the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to provide one effective opportunity to the petitioners to lead their defence evidence, however subject to payment of Rs. 25,000/- as costs. The amount is ordered to be deposited with the Institute for Blind, Sector 26, Chandigarh within a period of two weeks from today.

It is further clarified that the trial court shall grant the opportunity to the petitioners to lead their defence evidence only after they produce the receipt of having deposited the costs as mentioned hereinabove."

6. It is recorded in the impugned order and it has not been denied by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that after the passing of this order the petitioners examined two witnesses in defence.

7. Thereafter, the petitioners moved two applications namely (i) under Section 45 read with Section 73 of Negotiable Instruments Act for examination of the hand writing expert and for the report of the FSL and (ii) under Section 311 of Cr. P.C. for calling the wit