The main legal point established in the judgment is that the defense regarding the difference of signature on a dishonored cheque is not available when the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds and not due to a difference in the signature.

U.C. Maheshwari, J.

The applicant accused has preferred this revision u/s 397 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by 7th Additional District Judge, Bhopal allowing the revision of the respondent and reversing the order dated 7.7.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 18427/2008, instituted by the respondent to prosecute the applicant u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short “the Act”), allowing his application filed u/s 45 of Evidence Act to get examine her alleged signature on the cheque in dispute from the hand writing expert and dismissed such application. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the applicant herein to pay the consideration had given the impugned cheque to the respondent. The respondent deposited the same with his Banker for collection but was returned to him with the memo of his Banker with endorsement that same has been dishonoured due to insufficient fund, on which after complying the technical provisions of Section 138 and other related provisions of the Act the respondent had filed the impugned complaint against the applicant, in which the cognizance of Section 138 of the Act was taken against the applicant and after his appearance the plea was recorded, he abjured the guilt, on which the trial was passed. After recording the evidence of the respondent the impugned application of Section 45 of Evidence Act was filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to get examine her signature on the cheque through handwriting expert. Such application was opposed by the respondents saying that such defence being not taken at any earlier stage either in response of demand notice or in the cross-examination of respondent's witnesses, is not available to the applicant. Such prayer is also opposed on the ground that cheque was not dishonoured by the Banker of the applicant on such ground of difference of the signature but the same was dishonoured only on the ground of insufficient fund, so the examination of signature of the applicant on the cheque from the hand writing expert is neither necessary nor could be permitted. On consideration the impugned application was allowed by the Trial Court and applicant was permitted to get examine her signature of the cheque from the handwriting expert, on which the respondent had filed the criminal revision before the Sessions Court. After extending the opportunity of hearing to the parties on consideration vide impugned order dated 17.11.2011 by holding that cheque being dishonoured only on the ground of insufficiency of fund and not on difference of the signature of the applicant, the examination of such cheque from handwriting expert is not necessary the revision was allowed and by setting aside the order of the Trial Court the impugned application of the applicant was dismissed on which the applicant has come to this Court with a prayer to set aside the order of the Revisional Court by restoring the order of Trial Court.

2. The applicant's Counsel after taking me through the revision memo along with the impugned order argued that although the impugned cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of fund and not on difference of the signature of the applicant but the applicant has a right to take all the available defence. In such premises the impugned application to get examine the signature from the expert was rightly allowed by the Trial Court and no error of jurisdiction was committed. He further said that in any case the order of the Trial Court could not be interfered by the Appellate Court under the revisional jurisdiction because the same was passed by the Trial Court under its vested discretionary jurisdiction. In continuation, he said that if she is not permitted to examine the cheque from expert then she would be deprived to defend the matter on material and important defence regarding difference of the signature on the cheque and prayed to set aside the