JUDGMENT
B.C. Kandpal, J.
1. The present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.8.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in criminal revision No. 11/2004 by which the learned Sessions Judge, set aside the order dated 9.2.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar and allowed the revision.
2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present revision arc that one Kishan Lal (respondent No. 4 in this revision) filed a complaint against the present revisionist Rajpal Singh under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act stating therein that Rajpal Singh took an amount of Rs. 1,57,6507- as loan. Thereafter when Rajpal Singh issued three cheques pertaining to U.K. Bank to the complainant then the same cheques returned to the complainant from the Bank after being dishonoured.
3. Complainant thereafter issued notice to Rajpal Singh but Rajpal Singh refused to accept notice, hence the complaint. The Court summoned the accused Rajpal Singh to face the trial.
4. Both the parties adduced their evidence and the defence evidence of Rajpal Singh was also concluded, thereafter the case was listed for final argument.
5. Rajpal Singh at the stage of the argument moved an application that the writing on the cheques be investigated by some handwriting expert. It has been contended by Rajpal Singh in his application all these three disputed cheques do not contain his writing.
6. Learned Magistrate allowed the application of Rajpal Singh and directed that the writing over the cheques be investigated by the handwriting expert,
7. Against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the complainant Kishan Lal preferred the revision before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, who vide his order dated 17.8.2004 allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 17.8.2004, Rajpal Singh preferred the revision before this Court which has been placed before me for final disposal.
9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The record reveals that the trial before the Court below is at its final stage. The revisionist did not take plea either in his statement under Section 313, Cr. PC. or in the evidence on his defence adduced by him before the Court below that the disputed cheques do not contain his handwriting. Moreover, the revisionist has also not denied his signature over the disputed cheques. Therefore, the application moved during the course of final argument appears to be an attempt to linger on the proceedings.
11. To my mind learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed a manifest, error by allowing the application filed by Rajpal Singh at the fag end of the trial. There was no justification for putting the handwriting under investigation by the handwriting expert at the stage of the final argument. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly interfered in the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and by allowing the revision, has committed no illegality or error in the eye of law.
12. In the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, I do not find any serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the Court. I do not find anywhere in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge that any mandatory provision of law was not complied with. I do not feel that the jurisdiction by way of this revision is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the lower revisional Court.
13. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.