Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Narsinhbhai vs State on 4 August, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/1450/2010	 1/ 5	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1450 of
2010 
=========================================================

 

NARSINHBHAI
KALAJI MALI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
ABHISHEK M MEHTA for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MS MANISHA L SHAH ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

Date
: 04/08/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. Petitioner
is the original accused, who is facing a complaint for cheque
bouncing, lodged in the year 2004. He is aggrieved by the order
dated 31.07.2009, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Deesa, below application Exhibit-49 in Criminal Case No. 1236 of
2004, as is upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by order
dated 09.07.2010, passed in Criminal Revision Appeal No. 80 of 2009.

2. By the said
application, the petitioner herein, desired that the cheque as well
as certain documents produced by the complainant, be sent for
hand-writing expert’s opinion. That was on the premise that, though,
according to the petitioner, the cheque contained his signature, the
details filled up in the cheque as well as other documents produced
by the complainant along with the cheque, were not in his
hand-writing.

3. The learned
Magistrate passed the impugned order, dismissing the application,
observing that the petitioner has admitted his signature on the
cheque. Previously also such an application was rejected on
09.04.2007, against which revision was preferred, which was came to
be dismissed on 27.07.2007. Against that, the petitioner has not
approached this Court. The statement of the petitioner under Section
313 of the Criminal Procedure Code was recorded on 11.08.2008.
Thereafter, he has examined three more witnesses. In this context,
the learned Judge was of the opinion that the petitioner is trying to
delay the proceedings and only with that purpose, these applications
were given.

4. The learned Sessions
Judge did not find any reason to interfere and confirmed the order of
the Magistrate.

5. I have heard learned
Counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP, I do not see any
reason to take a different view. Significantly, for this very
purpose, the petitioner had previously approached the learned
Magistrate, who had passed the order dated 09.04.2007, rejecting the
said prayer, observing inter alia that the application is
filed only for delaying the proceedings. Documents Exhibits-12, 13
and 14, on which the petitioner disputes his signature have been
produced since long.

6. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge, in the Revision Application, upheld the
order of the Magistrate once again, observing that the petitioner is
trying to delay the proceedings.

7. The learned Counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that, after the above-mentioned
orders are passed in the first round of litigation, the petitioner
has been able to produce further material and would be in a position
to make out a case for sending the disputed documents for
hand-writing expert’s opinion and such a request, therefore, ought to
have been granted.

8. However, in the
present case, in the previous applications no such stage was left
open and the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions
Judge, finally and conclusively rejected his request for sending the
documents for hand-writing expert’s opinion. Both the courts were
also of the opinion that the petitioner is trying to delay the
proceedings.

9. The learned Counsel
for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in Madhubhai
Gandabhai Patel Vs. Joitaram Jividas Patel & Another
reported in 2005(3)GLH 535. However, in the present case, in view of
the above discussion, it is not possible to grant a fresh inning.

10. In view of the
above, the petition is required to be dismissed. However, nothing,
stated in this order, shall come in the way of the petitioner,
seeking to establish before the Court below through the evidence that
may be on record that the cheque was not issued for discharging legal
debt, with respect to which I express no opinion.

11. Subject
to above observations, the petition is dismissed.

(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)

Umesh/

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.209 seconds.