O R D E R

13.10.2017

1. These petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC assailing the order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, Delhi whereby an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act dated 04.01.2013 and an application dated under Section 311 Cr.PC dated 22.11.2014 brought by the petitioners were dismissed and also order dated 12.10.2015 passed by Special Judge (NDPS) (N/E), Delhi in Revision Petition No. 18/2015.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petitions is that the respondent herein had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act on which summons were issued to the petitioner herein; that notices were framed against the petitioner, who denied the allegations and stated that the respondent/complainant had stolen the cheques and misused the same; that the matter was fixed for defence evidence and the petitioner had summoned the bank witnesses to prove that the bank account had already been closed and no transaction had been made since long; that thereafter the petitioner had summoned the bank witness of respondent’s bank to examine the bank deposit slip regarding the deposit of the cheque in question but the original deposit slip were not on judicial record; that an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for calling a handwriting and finger print expert to give his expert opinion, was made; that another application under Section 311 Cr.PC for recalling the bank witness of the respondent to bring the original record was moved; that vide impunged order dated 24.02.2015, both aforesaid applications were dismissed; that the petitioner filed a Revision Petition against the said order which was dismissed vide impugned order dated

12.10.2015.

3. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cheque was never issued by the petitioner to the respondent and the same was stolen and misused by the respondent. Learned counsel contended that opinion of the handwriting and finger print expert to prove the handwriting and signature on the cheque in question was necessarily required and the Trial Court having rejected his prayer resulted in miscarriage of justice.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supporting the impugned orders argued that there is no merit in the applications under Section 45 of Evidence Act and under Section 311 Cr.PC and the impugned orders dismissing the said applications do not suffer from any illegality and hence, no interference is required by this Court.

5. I heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Respondent/complainant filed a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act for discharge of a cheque dated 26.10.2004 for Rs.3,00,000/-. Notice of accusation was framed against the petitioner who denied his liability of cheque in question and submitted that his signed cheque was stolen and misused by the respondent. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Bank officials being DW1 and DW2 were examined to prove the fact that the account was maintained by the petitioner in State Bank of India, Chawri Bazar, Delhi and the cheque deposit slip with Punjab National Bank, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for summoning the handwriting expert to give his opinion about the signature of the complainant on the cheque in question and thereafter moved another application under Section 311 Cr.PC for summoning the original cheque deposit slip dated 16.04.2005 in respect of the cheque in question from Punjab National Bank, Vivek Vihar, Delhi for comparison of the handwriting of the cheque deposit slip with the handwriting and signatures on the cheque in question.

7. For the purpose of deliberation, the Section 20 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881’ is reproduced hereunder:

“Section 20: Inchoate stamped instruments.— Where one person signs and