ORDER

1. Against the proceedings initiated for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused filed an application for referring the admitted and disputed signatures found in Exs.D.1, D2, D3, D4 and D5 and for securing the expert’s opinion on the handwriting found in the said exhibits. The said application has been rejected as against which, the present petition is filed.

2. The case of the complainant was that the accused had executed an on demand promissory note and also a letter of undertaking to repay certain sums and in view of the said transactions, he also issued a cheque, which when presented was dishonoured stating that there was instructions to stop payment.

3. The defence of the accused, as could be seen from the reply notice, was the complete denial of any transaction with the complainant. In fact, it was specifically averred in the reply that there did not exist any legally recoverable debt from the accused and there was no transaction whatsoever between the accused and the complainant and therefore, the assertion that he was liable to pay a sum of Rs.2 crores was incorrect.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner did admit the signature found on the cheque and therefore, question of referring the cheque for expert’s opinion would not arise.

5. It is, however, to be stated here that the complainant basically based his entire claim on a letter of undertaking dated 08.12.2009 and an on-demand promissory note executed by the petitioner on 08.12.2009, whereby the accused is alleged to have undertaken to pay a sum of Rs.2 crores along with interest.

6. In the light of the fact that the accused denied the entire transaction and contended that the signatures found on the letter of undertaking and on the on-demand promissory note were not his, in my view, this would be an appropriate case to refer the documents to obtain al expert’s opinion at the forensic science laboratory (FSL).

7. The reasoning of the Trial Court that these documents were not required to be sent to FSL on the premise that in the cross-examination of the complainant, the accused did not contend that the complainant forged his signature on Exs.D1 and D2, cannot be accepted, in the light of specific contention taken by the accused in the reply notice. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the application filed by the petitioner to refer the on demand promissory note and the letter of undertaking for an expert’s opinion is allowed. The Trial Court is directed to refer the admitted and disputed signatures found on Ex.D1, Ex.D2, Ex.D3, Ex.D4 and Ex.D5 to FSL for comparison and opinion.

8. Having regard to the fact that the proceedings is of the year 2010, the FSL shall furnish a report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order referring the documents for its opinion. The Trial Court shall thereafter consider and dispose of the entire matter within a period of six months.

9. The petition is accordingly allowed.