ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed to quash the order dated 27.10.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur in SCNIA No. 4314/2014 Santosh Gupta Vs. Rajendra Shrivas whereby an application under Sections 45 and 73 of the EVIDENCE ACT filed by the petitioner/accused has been dismissed. Against the impugned order, a revision was preferred by the petitioner/accused before the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Electricity Act, 2003 No.9, Jabalpur by order dated 08.12.2021 passed in Cr.R. No. 272/2021 Rajendra Shrivas Vs. Santosh Gupta has affirmed the order passed by learned JMFC and has dismissed the revision application.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is facing trial in SC NIA No. 4314/2014 Santosh Gupta Vs. Rajendra Shirvas for commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as N.I. Act.) before JMFC, Jabalpur. It is alleged that petitioner/accused had issued a cheque dated 10.02.2014 in favour of the respondent/complainant for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, when cheque was presented by him in the bank for encashment same stand dishonored on 13.02.2014. A complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before learned JMFC alleging that the petitioner/accused has committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

3. At the stage of defence evidence, petitioner/accused moved an application under Sections 45 and 73 of the EVIDENCE ACT and submitted that a blank cheque signed by him was given for security purposes but name and amount written in words/digit and the dates were not filled by him, hence, same is required to be compered by the handwriting of the complainant. It is the defence of the petitioner/accused that he had given blank cheque signed by him. Cheque was given only for the security purpose. Therefore, he prayed that order be passed for examination of the body of cheque by handwriting expert but he did not deny his signature on the cheque. It is undisputed that the cheque was given by the petitioner and it bears his signature. The application was dismissed by learned JMFC by the order dated 27.10.2021 on the ground that matter is pending since 2014 and case is being fixed for defence evidence since 22.02.2019. Applicant has admitted his signature on the cheque and has further admitted that he had given it to the complainant. The only defence is that it was given for security purposes. Application has been filed only to protract the trial.

There is no need to examine the body of the cheque as it has been filed just to delay the culmination of the old pending case. The order dated 27.10.2021 passed by learned JMFC was challenged before the Court of Session by filing a criminal revision but that was also dismissed holding that reasons recorded by learned JMFC are just and plausible and no impropriety incorrectness and illegality is found in the order passed by the learned JMFC. Hence, revision application was also dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant placing reliance on the case of Kalyani Bhaskar Vs. M.S. Sampoornam 2007(2) SCC 258 and T. Nagappa Vs. YR. Murlidhar, 2008 (4) MPLJ 455 (SC), 2008 (5) SCC 633 submitted that accused has right to fair trial and has also a right to defend himself and the right to defend oneself is recognized by Section 243 (2) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, learned Courts below were not justified in dismissing his application for examination of the body of t