HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 536 / 2017

Manoj Kumar Vyas S/o Sh. Dvarkaa Prashad, C/o Sh. Maghraj

Kalla Plot No. 602 11th "B" Road Sardarpura Jodhpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan

2. Sunil Jain S/o Sh. Gheanwar Chand Jain, 11/819 Chopasni

Housing Board Jodhpur.

----Respondents

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mukesh Mehra

For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.S.Panwar PP for the State.

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

07/07/2017

1.

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

has been preferred against the order dated 24.12.2016 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan

in Revision Petition No.10/2016 and NCV No.209/2016, rejecting

the revision petition as well as the application filed by the

petitioner, pending trial in Special Court, Negotiable Instruments

Act Cases No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the petitioner is seeking age of the cheque and ink on the cheque

through the report of the Foresic Science Laboratory, so as to

make out a case that if the cheque is more than three months old,

then the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

(2 of 4)

[CRLMP-536/2017]

Act shall not apply.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance

on the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

S.Rama Krishna Vs. S. Rami Reddy & Ors., reported in

2008(3) CJ (SC) Cr. 867 as well as by this Court in Bhagwati

Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2013(2) NIJ

(Raj.) [NOC].

4.

As per the precedent law, the cheque, which was five

years old was considered to be a fit case for being sent to the

Central Forensic Science Laboratory.

5.

Learned Public Prosecutor however, vehemently

opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner and submitted that once the signatures of the petitioner

on the cheque are admitted and the date mentioned on the

cheque is in accordance with the provisions of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, then there cannot be any escape from the

applicability of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

6.

In support of his submissions, the learned Public

Prosecutor has cited the precedent law laid down by this Court in

Vishnu Kumar Vs. Sita Ram, reported in 2010 2 Bankmann

568, wherein it has been laid down that once the petitioner is

admitting his signatures upon the cheque, then no error is

committed by the learned trial court as well as learned revisional

court in declining the prayer of the petitioner for sending the

cheque to the handwriting expert.

(3 of 4)

[CRLMP-536/2017]

7.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well

as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law

cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the precedent law

pertaining to five years old cheques shall not apply in the present

case, as at the first instance, while replying the notice or making

submissions before the court, the petitioner did not raise any such

point, as to whether the cheque was beyond the settled

parameters of three or six months, and therefore, was not

amenable to the jurisdiction of the Negotiable Instruments Act. No

such pleadings or submissions were made by the petitioner, while

replying the notice or making submissions before the court. Since

this is not the original pleading or original stand of the petitioner,

therefore, the question would not arise at this stage, whether any

kind of determination of the age of the cheque is required.

8.

In the present case, the fact of the signatures being

admittedly of the petit