ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 14.09.2023 passed by learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, being Criminal Revision Application No.156/2023 as well as order dated 12.06.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, (Negotiable Instruments Act), Rajkot, in Criminal Case No.4638/2018 below Exh:74.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has issued a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for payment of interest, which came to be deposited by filling different amount in the cheque. Further the complainant produced a disputed promissory note at Exh:11, wherein the Petitioner’s signature is shown, which in fact, as per the say of the Petitioner, he has not made any signature on the said promissory note. It is thereby case of the Petitioner that the signatures in the cheque as well as in the promissory note are different. Therefore, the said documents are required to be sent to FSL for examination.

4. From the record, it appears that at the instance of respondent No.2, Criminal Case No.4638/2018 is filed under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, which is pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Rajkot, wherein applications below Exhs:11 and 12 came to be filed by the petitioner seeking sending them to FSL for examination of signatures.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material placed on record, it appears that application filed below Exh:74 came to be dismissed as statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C came to be recorded and the matter was kept for evidence of the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No.156/2023, which also came to be dismissed by assigning reasons, more particularly, on the ground that the petitioner has not disputed the signature over the cheque. Proceedings are going on under Section 138 of the Act. The petitioner has filed an application to send the documents i.e. promissory note to FSL. It is needless to say that definitions of promissory note and cheque are defined in Sections 4 and 6 of the negotiable Instruments Act respectively. Here issuance of cheque is not in dispute. Proceedings under Section 138 qua dishonor of cheque. Even cognizance of the offence is not disputed. Learned advocate has mainly relied on the judgment delivered in the case of T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R Murlidhar, reported in AIR 2008 Sc 2010 to buttress his argument and submitted that, if the documents are not sent to FSL, which amounts to denial of fair trial and examination of determination of the case to send documents to FSL is required. Exh:11 is promissory note and Exh:12 are the disputed documents.

Cheques those are required to be sent to FSL, but how both the documents are relevant and for what reason promissory note is relevant to decide the said issue. Even the cheque itself is produced on record as an evidence and even in the reply and in cross- examination also, no specific defense has been put forward by the Petitioner. Even in the cheque and promissory note, signature is admitted. So far provisions of Section 20 is concerned, which provides authorization to the holder to complete inchoate instrument once the person signatures and delivers to another. Here the signature on the cheque or leaf of the cheque is not disputed.

6. Considering the aforesaid, once the signature on the cheque is admitted, question does not arise to send it for further examination to FSL. In the case on hand, once the signature is admitted, as per the law laid down in the case of Kalamani Tex and Anr. Vs. P. Balasubramanian, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283, the Court shall have to presume about legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh reported in