Dataji Rice Mills Private Limited ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1018 Cal

Court No.                IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
32
Item 7                    Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
ssi
            Before:
05.02.
            The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jay Sengupta
2021


                                  C.R.R. 364 of 2020

                       Dataji Rice Mills Private Limited & Ors.

                                     Versus

                       The State of West Bengal & Anr.



            For the Petitioners            : Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharya


            For the Opposite Party        : Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya
                                            Mr. Amit Muhuri
                                           Ms. Rituparna Chatterjee

            Heard on                      : 05.02.2021

            Judgement on                  : 05.02.2021


            Jay Sengupta, J. :


                  This is an application challenging an order     dated

            09.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

            Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Bichar Bhavan, Calcutta in

            Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2019, thereby dismissing the

            said revision and affirming the order dated 08.04.2019

            passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th

            Court, Calcutta in Complaint Case No. CS/0059534 of

            2016 under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable
                                      2


Instruments Act.

      Learned    counsel   appearing       on   behalf   of   the

petitioners submits as follows. The petitioners are the

accused in this case. The complainant had relied on a

money receipt purportedly signed by the accused to

substantiate the consideration behind the cheque-in-

question. An application was made by the petitioners on

01.03.2019

to have the signature on the money receipt

compared with admitted signature of the accused by a

handwriting expert. Thereafter, the accused was examined

under Section 313 on 07.03.2019. The learned Magistrate

went on to compare the signature of the accused on the

313 sheet with his signature on the Vakalatnama, the

application for bail and the application under Section 205

of the Code and came to a finding that the accused had

purportedly made a different signature in the Section 313

sheet. However, the signature on the money receipt was

not compared with. The learned Magistrate rejected the

application to send the matter to a handwriting expert.

This order was affirmed by the learned Session Judge.

The learned revisional Court further erred on facts in

holding that the application was made after the

examination of the accused under Section 313 of the

Code. In any event, it will be open to the accused to make

such a prayer even after the examination of the accused

under Section 313 of the Code. Reference is made to

paragraph 8 of the supplementary affidavit by the

petitioners and it is submitted that at the time when a

resolution of the local Bar Association not to pass any

adverse order was in force, the learned trial Court closed

the evidence of the defence and the petitioners were

constrained to move a revisional application before the

learned Session Court. The learned Session Court was

pleased to set aside the order and remand back the

matter for further arguments.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

complainant-opposite party submits as follows. During

pendency of the present revisional application, the

petitioners participated in the trial and did not adduce

any defence evidence. At this stage, the petitioners want

the clock to be set back so that a different complexion

could be given to the entire defence case. The learned

Magistrate did invoke Section 73 of the Evidence Act and

compare the signature of the petitioners on admitted

documents. As such, there were no need to send the

documents in question to a handwriting expert to

examine. The only reason for such an application to seek

opinion of a handwriting expert was to delay the

proceeding.

I have heard the submissions of the learned

counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have

perused the revision petition and the supplementary

affidavit.

It appears that the petitioners have challenged the

order refusing to send the document in question to a

handwriting expert quite sometime ago. The revisional

application had remained pending. Even if, the petitioners

participate in the trial in the meantime or, for that matter,

are under compulsion to do so, it shall not preclude this

Court from deciding the revisional application on merits.

The petitioners have questioned the signature on a

money receipt which forms the basis of consideration

behind the cheque in question. As such, it would be

appropriate if the signature is sent to a handwriting

expert for comparison.

The learned Magistrate purportedly invoked

under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and tried to compare

a signature of the accused present on different

documents. However, it appears that he did not compare

the signature of the accused present on the alleged money

receipt. Therefore, this exercise was a futile one.

The learned revisional Court seems to have erred in

holding that the application for seeking the handwriting

expert's opinion was filed after the examination of the

accused under Section 313 of the Code. In any event,

even after examination of the accused under Section 313

of the Code, an accused can seek the opinion of a

handwriting expert. On this reliance placed on Kalyani

Baskar -vs- M.S. Sampoornam reported in (2007) 2 SCC

258.

If the purported money receipt is not sent to an

expert for comparison, it would amount to denying a fair

trial to the accused.

In the facts and circumstances of the particular

case, I think it should appropriately to allow the

application of the petitioners to send the money receipt to

a handwriting expert for comparing the signature of the

accused with those in admitted documents.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order and

the corresponding earlier order of the learned Trial Court

are set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to

send the money receipt in question to a handwriting

expert for comparison with the signature of the accused

present in admitted documents. The exercise has to be

completed as expeditiously as possible. The learned Trial

Court is requested to conclude the proceeding at the

earliest without granting any unnecessary adjournment to

any of the parties and keeping in view the statutory

stipulation regarding completion of a proceeding under

the Negotiable Instruments Act.

With these observations, the revisional application

is disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may

be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if

applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)