Court :
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Brief :
In the present case, much less to speak of any process alien to law being adopted by the Courts below, as stated above, this Court does not find even any illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the Courts
below. Hence, the present petition is, otherwise also, not maintainable.
Citation :
Sukhjinder Singh vs. Buta Singh
|
Petitioner |
Sukhjinder Singh |
|
Respondent |
Buta Singh |
|
Court |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-30633 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision:19.07.2019
Sukhjinder Singh .....Petitioner
Vs.
Buta Singh .....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Present:- Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
Rajbir Sehrawat, J.(Oral)
This is a petition challenging the order dated 29.01.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot; dismissing the application of the petitioner/ accused for taking his own specimen handwriting for comparison of the same with the writing on the body of the cheque involved the complaint; and the order dated 02.07.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by Additional Sessions Judge Faridkot, thereby dismissing the revision petition against the above said order of the trial Court.
The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner had given a cheque to the complainant; which the complainant
claims to be received in discharge of enforceable liability of the petitioner. The said cheque was defaulted in payment. Therefore, the complainant had preferred a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act The complainant completed his evidence. At the stage of starting of the defence evidence, the petitioner/ accused has taken a plea that the cheque in question, though undisputedly signed by him, however, was not `drawn' by him; because he had not filled up the body of the cheque. To prove this
fact, the petitioner/ accused moved an application before the trial Court for sending his sample handwriting to the expert for comparison of the same with the writing found in the body of the cheque. That application was declined by the trial Court vide the abovesaid order dated 29.01.2019.
Aggrieved against the order of the trial court, the petitioner/accused preferred the revision petition before the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Faridkot. However, the same was also declined by the Additional Sessions Judge; vide order dated 02.07.2019. While dismissing the revision petition, the Revisional Court observed that the accused want to plead that it is not he, who filled up the body of the cheque; rather it is the complainant who filled up the cheque. However, the complainant has not even claimed in the complaint that the accused filled up the cheque.
Rather it is the positive case of the complainant that when the cheque was sought to be handed over to the complainant, at that time, the body of the cheque was already filled up, however, the signature of the accused/ petitioner was not there. Therefore, the petitioner/accused was asked to put his signatures; so as to complete the cheque. Accordingly, the petitioner/ accused put the signatures on the cheque in the presence of the complainant and, thereafter, handed over the same to him. Still further, it was observed by the trial Court that signatures on the cheque are not even disputed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Revisional Court held that even as per the law, it is not necessary that body of the cheque in question must have been filled by the accused/drawer himself. The body of the cheque could have been filed up by anybody. Therefore, this fact is; otherwise also; irrelevant.
To read the full judgement, find the enclosed file
CAclubindia
