JUDGMENT :

Aman Chaudhary, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 05.04.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing the revision petition filed against the order dated 28.10.2017, vide which the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana, dismissed application filed by the petitioner for appointment of handwriting expert.

2. Brief facts that emerge from the complaint are that the petitioner approached the respondent for taking financial assistance and received Rs.2,50,000/- on 16.04.2013 with an assurance to return the same within a period of four months. In order to discharge part of his legal liability, he issued a cheque for Rs.2,00,000/-, which on presentation got dishonored bearing remarks "funds insufficient." After serving notice upon the accused, the complaint in question was filed, to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty.

3. Learned counsel has contended that the body of the cheque was not filed by him but by the complainant-respondent. The said cheque was given for the purpose of security mentioning the amount as Rs.1 lac in numeric. The rest of the body was blank. The writing is not of the petitioner and after altering the amount from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- the same was presented in the Bank. Thus, he prayed for getting the said cheque examined from a handwriting expert, for which one opportunity is sought.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent submitted that no question was put regarding alteration of cheque in the cross-examination by the petitioner. Still further, that the expert will also not be able to opine that the alteration was at the hands of the complainant or the petitioner. The Courts below have rightly dismissed the application, which has been filed merely to delay the proceedings.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. It would be worthwhile to refer to the impugned order passed by the trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the respondent, the relevant paras of which read thus:

"5. First of all, it is pertinent to mention here that the cheque in question has been dishonoured by the bank on the ground of "insufficient funds" and not on the ground of "Alteration requires Drawer's Authentication", which means that the bank found no alteration over the cheque in question. Moreover, if for the sake of arguments, we assume that there is alteration over the cheque in question, even then, ld. Counsel for the applicant failed to explain that how it can be proved that the alteration on the cheque in question has been made by the complainant and not by the accused. It could have been made by anyone of them. Hand writing expert can give his opinion only with regard to the fact of alteration but not with regard to the fact that who has made the alteration. Further, accused/applicant nowhere denied his signatures over the cheque in question. It is pertinent to mention here that the controversy under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is related to the fact that whether the cheque in question was issued by the accused or not or whether the same has been issued against any existing liability. Since the accused admitted his signatures on cheques in question, then there exist no ground to examine the handwriting to prove the handwriting of the cheque in question as it is not necessary under law that the document should also have been written by the person who has signed the same to make the same admissible in evidence. Xx

xx xx

6. On the basis of all the above mentioned fact, this court finds the present application as nothing but an abuse to the process o