-3- 2. The respondent has filed a private complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. for an ofience punishable under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act. in the said pxnceesgiings, the
petitioner has flied an application under Section 311
with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Acj;__
reference of the s1gna’ ture on theeiieqne to -:
experffs verification. The appiicniiion
learned Magistrate holding
competent person to is of the
accused or not with mfefenee signature and in
this regard, it ;’sf£1o_t Counsel for the
petitionee ‘ofvwflvxe Bank was examm ed in
connection with on the cheque and noth3n’ g has
been elieitedL Veviflenée, as an after thought, an application
V’ «is ‘forizefeuinxgfl on the cheque for opinion of the
In this context, the Iwrnm Judge has
is only with an intentio to protract the matter,
“the anplieafion has been flied.
” In similar eimumstanoes. this Court in a judment
% mgioncd in gm 209? KAR 935 in the matter of H.MsA’1mH –us~»
” B.N.ASHOK has observed that, in case of denial of signature of
drawer of the cheque, the best Witness would be the concerned
Bank Manager and not a handwriting expert and similar View is
also taken in another judgment reported in ILR 2006 KAR 2958
in the matter of RAJENDRA PRASAB —vs- MSHIVARAJ
this Court has observed that, the Banker of the
competent person t0 Show Whether it is the ef
accused or not with reference to the sgfiecieien
case, the Bank Manager having
been elicited in his evidence. I d'(u)’e=,I:V1E()¥*. find Vfllhekt enor in
the order passed by the –
Accordingly, the petition. ‘dismissed.