The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of liability of the drawer of the cheques under Section 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the obligation on the accused to rebut the presumption.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 01.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sohna in case NIA/202/2016 dated 25.11.2016 titled as Ravinder Vs. Sudhir Kumar, whereby an application moved by the petitioner for appointment of Finger Print Expert and Handwriting Expert, has been dismissed. Challenge is also to the Order dated 18.01.2022 vide which the Revision Petition filed by the present petitioner against the Order dated 01.12.2021 has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application of the petitioner for examination of a handwriting expert deserves to be allowed so as to prove that the cheque has been given by the petitioner to the respondent as a security without there being any legally enforceable debt.

3. This Court has heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and has perused the paper book and finds that the present revision petition is bereft of merits and deserves to be dismissed on the following grounds:-

I. The argument raised by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram as noticed in paragraph 8 of the impugned order is to the effect that the cheque has not been signed by him. The said argument has been rejected on the ground that there is no denial by the petitioner regarding his signatures over the cheque in question in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which he had taken up the plea that he had signed the cheque for security purpose and had not disputed his signatures. Paras 8 and 13 of the Impugned Order dated 18.01.2022 are reproduced hereinbelow:

xxx xxx

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that cheque in dispute has not been signed by him. It has further been contended that it was in the interest of justice that complainant be directed to give his handwriting before the appointed expert in order to get the report.

xxx xxx

13. There is hardly any case made out to show that the evidence sought to be produced at this stage eluded the applicant earlier despite exercise of due diligence. It appears to be a crude attempt on the part of the applicant to undo the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Further more, there is no denial of accused regarding his signatures over the cheque in question and accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C has specifically stated that he had issued the cheque for security purpose. It is not the plea of the accused that cheque was not signed by him whereas it is the stand of the accused that cheque was given for security purposes. When there is no dispute regarding signatures of accused over the cheque in question, then question of appointment of handwriting expert to compare the handwriting over cheque in question does not arise.

Xxx xxx'

II. Neither the statement under Section 313 CrPC nor the grounds of revision have been annexed alongwith the present petition to show that the said finding/observation is perverse or contrary to the record. Even the application in question has not been annexed nor any statement/evidence from the side of the complainant has been annexed along with the present petition.

III. The complaint, as is apparent from Annexure P-1 (Pg 10), is of the year 2016 and it has been specifically recorded in paragraph

12 of the Impugned Order dated 18.01.2022 (P-2) that in spite of 12 effective opportunities, including last opportunity, no evidence has been led by the defence nor any reason has been given for not producing the said defence evidence and thus, the present application has been filed only to delay the proceedings. No zimni order has been produced on record to rebut the said observation.

IV. Even in case, although not prima facie shown, it is taken that the cheque was issued as a security cheque or the same was a blank signed cheque as was sought to be argued before the Judicial Magistrate First Class and as has been noticed in paragraph 2 of the