Ravinder Singh Chauhan v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No: V.K. JAIN, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 20th July, 2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby an application filed by the petitioner seeking permission for sending cheque in question on dishonour of which the complaint is based, to handwriting expert to ascertain the authorship of the date and 2010:DHC:269 amount written on that cheque and also the year/period of writing the amount and date on that cheque, was rejected.

2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that cheque in question was a blank cheque when it was issued to the respondent and only the name of the payee had been filled on it at that time. In other words, according to the petitioner the date on the cheque as well as the amount of cheque in words as well as in figures were not written on the cheque when it was delivered to the respondent. What the petitioner wants to show is that since the amount and date on the cheque had not been written when it was delivered to the petitioner, it would indicate that the cheque was a blank cheque and was given not towards discharge of any debt or liability but as a security for re-payment of the loan which the petitioner had taken from the respondent.

3 In T.Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Muralidhar, an application filed by the appellant under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for referring the cheque in question for examination by Director FSL, to determine the age of his signature, was rejected. The contention of the appellant before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was that the respondent had obtained a signed cheque in the year 1999 as a security for a loan of Rs.50,000/which he later on paid back but instead of returning the cheque, the respondent misused it by entering the huge amount which he did not owe to him. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and thereby permitted the appellant to have expert opinion on the following questions:- “Whether the writing appearing in the said cheque on the front page is written on the same day and time when the said cheque was signed as „T.Nagappa‟ on the front page as well as on the reverse, or in other words, whether the age of the writing on Ext.P-2 on the front page is the same as that of the signatures „T. Nagappa‟ appearing on the front as well as on the reverse of the cheque, Ext.P-2.”

4 The above referred decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, there can be no valid objection to the appellant seeking to prove that the cheque in question was indeed issued as a security and for this purpose to obtain the opinion of handwriting expert as regards age of the writing in which date and amount has been written on it. The petitioner being accused in a criminal case is entitled to prove his defence in any legal permissible manner he chooses to adopt. The Court is duty bound to facilitate him in proving his defence, by producing such evidence as he may feel appropriate and necessary. It will not be appropriate for the Court to disallow such an application in the absence of any cogent reason for doing so.

5. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the cheque in question be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory in Rohini for the opinion of the Hand-Writing Expert on the following question:- “Whether the date and amount in words and in figures on cheque Ext.CW-1/A was written on the same day and time when the said cheque was signed by the petitioner. In other words, the hand-writing expert should give the age of the writing pertaining to the date and amount on cheque Ext.CW-1/A.”

6 The hand-writing expert shall send his report within four weeks of the receipt of the cheque Ext.CW-1/A by FSL. The cheque in question will be sent by the Trial Court to FSL within one week of next date of hearing in this case. The petition stands disposed of. One copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court for information and necessary action.

V.K. JAIN (JUDGE) JANUARY 19, 2010 J