Sessions Judge, Belgaurn, in Criminal Revision Petition No.370/2006 and to restore the order dated 27.10.2006 passed by the JMFC II Court, Belgaum, in C.C.No.671/2965, rejecting application filed by the respondent/accusedw f .
2. The brief facts of the case leading to this’..”p’etiti.oh is
as under:
The complaint under Section
Procedure was filed by the compiaVi’na%nt ahgainstggthewlaccused
for the offence punishable un.ti–en”g_v~Section’ ‘”138 the
Negotiable Instruments Act.” _Dulri.ngVfthe’recourse of the said
proceedings, ac_cus’ed__filed*4an«.’Va;3pi§cation under Section 293
read with Section Criminal Procedure to send
the cheque _for’u’cern’parin.g admitted signatures of the
I-‘f_e.\k’ision’i”netitioner withwthat of signature appearing on the
ch1eeue_a-‘hea.ri’ng’aun.oV.’.3L67516 dated 1?.06.2004 for chemical
x””‘V’exarnine.tion.-~ JMFC II, Belgaum, has rejected the
applicavtiiiin. Learned counsel for the accused had sought
for””.refer%’ing the cheque to the Forensic Laboratory, to
‘ascertain whether the signature on the cheque belongs to the
:’VJ”»ac’cused and how old is the signature. The accused has
” admitted the signature on the abovesaid cheque in her reply
to demand notice marked at Ex.P.8, in para no.4 as under:
C/’
” looted all the articles worth
Rs.10,0o,000/– and valuable papers like
signed blank cheques and cheque book. Out it
of the said cheques the cheque bearin_§”‘~” It it
no.1s7s16 dated 17.06.2004 is also one.
That means according to the accused ‘.E’x’.P~.§;_v-clheque *
signed by her is one of the articles :i.oot:e<.'..
'¥'herefore, there is no dispute '4-regard-i.n§ sjigi.natLi3rev%
appearing on Ex.P.1, the cheque)'-..:_The 'i'rla.|_'VfiCo1.irt has
observed that there is no 'nt-;e_d to;_send_':the__cheque to the
Forensic Laboratoryfor ve~rificatio–n_V~.or""c_on'ipa'rision of the
signature,Zvijhe'Trivallxfioiurtblthis-isalsci opined that the finding of
the Forensictexpert of the signature would not
.– .. ._ was r
__h_elp the_%.case of eitheijxjthevparties. 'therefore, the Trial Court
'ti'-..asA rejecte:id:.the"-.s_aid application. Aggrieved by the same,
the"'eccu_sed' pifeierred a Revision Petition.
and substance of the finding of the
" " –1'i."v'R__evisional' €Z_.o'urt is as under:
it "me iearned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that
_ asceijtainling the age of the writing in the cheque will not help
"the'revision petitioner in any way to prove her case and no
V'
purpose will be served by sending the cheque for chemical
examination. It has further observed that it is not necessary
to send the cheque in question for chemical exareinaVti_oi-n.j;,:"'
But, however, in the final order, the learned Ses_sio–hs'
has allowed the revision petition in J
order dated 27.10.2006 passed in sol
as it pertains to refusal of th'é'e».:V:prayer V"i.-gorision
petitioner to send the chedue for
comoaring the disputed admitted
signature and ordei'ed.1"that thLe:.~~'ch'ed'ue~.in___V§u:est%on'shall be
sent to the ."toV"'=lf.jornoare the disputed
signature oflthe admitted signature.
4. éleard sir:3es”vand’Vperused the records.
»A ‘-counsel for the petitioner submitted that in
V the iedai i¥oti’ce,’~li;the accused has clearly admitted that the
U’
ehequein qlu.e’sét’iod was looted alohgwith other articles and it
. fiohtained the signature of the accused. Relying on this, the
–.'{‘riai~:V{fiourt has formed an opinion that it is not a fit case to
T ‘l–.r:e’fe’rl the cheque to the Forensic Laboratory. But the learned
Sessions Judge has formed an opinion that the cheque was
forged one and comoarision of the signature is necessary.
when in the legal notice, the accused has clearly admitted
9/
that the signature on the cheque is her signature. Each
being the case, the learned Sessions Judge could
come to the conclusion that the cheque should__Vl§e:.sentxl’for’ it
chemical examination for ascertaining;the”g’enu«iner:essgfvvgthe
signature, is not correct. in support of centention. ‘learn,uedv.v”
counsel for the petitioner relied ‘oan:i:he decisioetinaclalsell of
H M SATISH V/S. B is ASHi::Jri{é_re;§ei;ted:’:inV:TL._8 2oo7*:<A:R 936.
Therefore, in my View the revisional
Court suffers from Taking into
consideration also the materials
placed on glecore. th'is"_'Rei}islon Petition deserves
to be al|ovv'e(i.l' V l h
6. In View.of=the-vaVbt>_§re.:–‘discussion, I pass the following:
i g ccccc
‘ In _ ~v.This~.¢’riminal Revision Petition is allowed.
dated 10.07.2097 passed in Criminal
‘, llgelllsion Petition 37o/zoos on the fiie of the 11
ihciditional Sessiens Judge, Belgaum, is hereby
set aside.
iii) The order dated 27.10.2006 passed by the JMFC
II, Beigaum, on the application fiied under
6/
KM
Section 293 read with Section 311 of Code: of
Criminal ?rocedure is hereby restored.