TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of arguments at bar, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that it is filed under Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. Section 243 of Cr.P.C. speaks about the evidence for defence. Subsection (2) of Section 243 of Cr.P.C. provides that if the accused, after he had entered upon his defence applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of the witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination or the production of any document or the other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such an application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such a ground shall be recorded by the Mag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to the order dated 04/08/2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margao in Criminal Revision Application No. 30/2015. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge had allowed the Criminal Revision Application filed by the respondent No. 1, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 1 for referring the disputed cheque to the handwriting expert. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner has filed a complaint against the respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque. During trial, the petitioner examined Mr. Surendra Gaonkar and his cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner that the respondent No. 1 has neither issued a reply to the statutory notice nor has disputed the signature on the cheque. It is submitted that the respondent No. 1 has also not entered into the witness box and has closed his defence evidence and as such, the application filed, was clearly misconceived and the learned Magistrate had rightly come to the conclusion that the application was filed with a view to delay the proceedings. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was in error in interfering with the said order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, particularly when there was no irregularity in the exercise of the discretion by the learned Magistrate. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance is placed on the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 97, 98 and 99/2015), in which this Court has upheld an order passed by the learned Magistrate referring the disputed cheque to an Handwriting Expert. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival circumstances and the submissions made. 10. In the present case, the respondent No. 1 is not disputing his signature on the subject cheque. The only contention is that a blank cheque was obtained by the petitioner by way of a security. In this regard, it would be significant to note that the respondent No. 1 has neither issued any reply to the notice nor has entered into the witness box in his defence. The application for referring the subject cheque to the Handwriting Expert was filed on 13/04/2015 and shortly thereafter, the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 118 and Section 139 of the Act. It is sufficient that the cheque is signed by the accused. The question of bonafides and whether or not the application is filed with a view to delay the proceedings, has to be examined in the context of the aforesaid facts obtaining in this case. The learned Magistrate had come to the conclusion and has recorded in his order that the application was filed in order to delay the proceedings. The question is whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in interfering with the said discretionary order, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It may be significant to note that the learned Sessions Judge, in para 6 of the impugned judgment, has accepted that there is no hard and fast rule that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue being sent for the report of the Handwriting Expert. Here is a case where the respondent No. 1, without himself entering into the witness box, is seeking sending of the cheque to Handwriting Expert, which in my considered view, could not have been allowed. 12. Reliance on the judgment in the case of Govind Prabhugaonkar (supra), in my humble view, is misplaced. There, the Magistrate had allowed the application for referring the cheque to the Handwriting Expert, which order has been confirmed by this Court. In other words, there was no finding in that case that the application was filed with a view to delay the proceedings. That apart, from the facts as available from that judgment, it cannot also be gathered whether the accused had en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
