IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No.1850 of 2019

------

Farhan Hussain, aged about 28 years, son of A. Hussain, resident of HST Complex, S-Type, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S.-Adityapur, District-

Seraikella-Kharsawan. … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Gabbu Lal Jaisawal, son of Late Mangal Ram Jaisawal, resident of Phase-1/4C, Lok Nath Complex, Prathma, Station Road, Jugsalai,

P.O. & P.S.-Jugsalai, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum.

… Opposite Parties

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate

: Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, Addl.P.P.

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate

------

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 06.04.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at

Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No.77 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur has set aside the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No.576 of 2016 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur rejected the prayer of the petitioner for sending the Exhibits-3 & 3/1 for opinion of the handwriting expert.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the complainant of C/1 Case No.576 of 2016 of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur involving the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the opposite party no.2 is the accused of the said case. The signature of the accused in the cheque is admitted and during the trial of the case, two documents were marked as Ext.-3 & 3/1 without any objection of the defence. Those are two bills, which is per the case of the complainant was signed by the accused as a receiver of materials. The defence of the accused person of the case is that the signature of the accused on the bills is false as the complainant did not supply the materials, therefore the accused intimated his bank to stop payment of the cheques; which were issued as an advance by the accused person, in anticipation of the receipt of the fruits. Prima facie, it appeared to the trial court that the signature appearing in Ext.-3 & 3/1 and the admitted signature appearing on the cheque appears to be the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur considered that the Ext.3 & 3/1 are the carbon copy of the acknowledgment of the receipt of the materials, hence, they being carbon copies, they are not fit to be sent for handwriting expert. Further, since the signature in the cheque of the accused person of the case was admitted, so Ext.-3 & 3/1 was only of corroborative value and the accused person though is in possession of the original tax invoice no.41 and 43 of which Ext.-3 & 3/1 are carbon copies, but he did not produce the same. The petition was filed after closure of the prosecution evidence and when the case was fixed for defence evidence and by thus considering, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur rejected the petition for sending the Ext.-3 & 3/1 to a handwriting expert.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur vide the impugned order dated 06.04.2019 in Criminal Revision No.77 of 2019 took note of the fact that the documents sought to be sent for a handwriting expert’s opinion are carbon copies, the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur failed to understand that when the defence is challenging the genuineness of the signature in the carbon copies, how the trial court had given liberty to the accused person to furnish the original tax invoice no.41 and 43, the carbon copies of which were marked as Ext.-3 & 3/1 and further observed that without obtaining an opinion of expert, the trial Court cannot come up its own finding regarding the gen