Page 1 of 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLREV No. 357 of 2017

Amulya Kumar Samal

&

Petitioner

Mr. B.Tripathy, Advocate

-Versus -

Bharat Kumar Samal

&.

Opposite Party

Mr. Basudev Pujari, Advocate

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

18.11.2022

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the Opposite Party.

3.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order dated 15.04.2017

passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack in 1.C.C. Case No.

612 of 2010 whereby the application filed by the petitioner,

who is the accused in Court below, under Section-243 of

Cr.P.C was rejected. By means of such petition the accused

wanted the handwriting/signature appearing in the cheques in

question to be examined by Handwriting Expert. It is the case

of the petitioner that he had never issued the cheques in

question to the complainant-Opposite Party and that the

handwriting/signature appearing therein were forged by him

only to make an unlawful game.

4.

In course of hearing, this Court has perused the original

reply submitted by the Advocate for the accused in response to

the legal notice sent by the complainant prior to institution of

the complaint wherein it is clearly stated that his client

(accused) never put signatures or date on the cheques as

Order No.

13.

Page 2 of 3

alleged. During cross-examination of the complainant, it has

been suggested to him by the defence that the handwriting and

ink used in writing in the cheques differs from other connected

documents to which he has admitted and it has been suggested

to him that the signatures on the cheques is not of the accused.

In fact, under Paragraph-40 of the cross examination under

query, the complainant is stated that he does not have any

objection if the accused sends his signature to be examined by

the Handwriting Expert.

5.

Learned counsel for the Opposite Party has contended

that had the cheques been dishonoured on account of the

discrepancy of the signature, the Bank would have indicated

such reason in the cheque dishonoured memo. It is further

contended that even otherwise it is open to the accused to

examine the Branch Manager to prove the signature on the

cheque and to say if there is any discrepancy noticed therein.

6.

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned

Court below has held that since the cheques were not

dishonoured on account of any discrepancy in the signature

but due to closure of the account it is not necessary to send the

cheques to the Handwriting Expert. Learned Court below has

also held that the Branch Manager of the Bank would be

competent to throw light on the same.

7.

After

perusing

the

impugned

judgment

and

on

consideration of the rival contentions put forth before this

Court, it appears that the learned Court below has misread the

purport of the petition filed by the accused inasmuch as it is

not his case that the cheques were dishonoured due to

Page 3 of 3

discrepancy in signature but that he had never issued the

cheques to the complaint. It is his further case that the

handwriting and signature on the cheques in question were

forged as already stated. Such plea has been taken by the

accused in reply to the legal notice submitted by his lawyer as

also while cross-examining the complainant. The dispute boils

down to the question whether the accused had issued the

cheques to the complainant in the first place. While it is

certainly open to the accused to examine the Branch Manager,

if he so deserves, but he not being an expert may not be able

to conclusively state anything in this regard. For the ends of

justice therefore, it would be proper if the cheques in question

are examined by the Handwriting Expert for opinion as

regards the claim of the accused that the signatures and

handwriting appearing therein do not b