Ravinder Singh Chauhan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 278 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            W.P.(Crl.) No.2844 /2009

                                 Date of Order: 19th January 2010


!      RAVINDER SINGH CHAUHAN                 ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. K.K. Jha with Mr. A.K.
                            Mishra, Advs.

                        versus


       STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.         ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Ravi Prakash with Mr.
                             Sharad Bansal, Advs. for R-2.

*      CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

       1.     Whether the Reporters of local papers
              may be allowed to see the judgment?        No

       2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not?     No

       3.     Whether the judgment should be
              reported in the Digest?                    No


: V.K. JAIN, J. (Oral)

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, challenging the order dated 20th July, 2009 passed by

the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby an application

filed by the petitioner seeking permission for sending cheque in

question on dishonour of which the complaint is based, to hand-

writing expert to ascertain the authorship of the date and

amount written on that cheque and also the year/period of

writing the amount and date on that cheque, was rejected.

2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that cheque in

question was a blank cheque when it was issued to the

respondent and only the name of the payee had been filled on it

at that time. In other words, according to the petitioner the date

on the cheque as well as the amount of cheque in words as well

as in figures were not written on the cheque when it was

delivered to the respondent. What the petitioner wants to show

is that since the amount and date on the cheque had not been

written when it was delivered to the petitioner, it would indicate

that the cheque was a blank cheque and was given not towards

discharge of any debt or liability but as a security for re-payment

of the loan which the petitioner had taken from the respondent.

3 In T.Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Muralidhar, an application filed by

the appellant under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for referring the cheque in question for examination

by Director FSL, to determine the age of his signature, was

rejected. The contention of the appellant before the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court was that the respondent had obtained a signed

cheque in the year 1999 as a security for a loan of Rs.50,000/-

which he later on paid back but instead of returning the cheque,

the respondent misused it by entering the huge amount which he

did not owe to him. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court allowed the

appeal and thereby permitted the appellant to have expert

opinion on the following questions:-

"Whether the writing appearing in the said cheque on the front page is written on the same day and time when the said cheque was signed as „T.Nagappa‟ on the front page as well as on the reverse, or in other words, whether the age of the writing on Ext.P-2 on the front page is the same as that of the signatures „T. Nagappa‟ appearing on the front as well as on the reverse of the cheque, Ext.P-2."

4 The above referred decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Even

otherwise, there can be no valid objection to the appellant

seeking to prove that the cheque in question was indeed issued

as a security and for this purpose to obtain the opinion of

handwriting expert as regards age of the writing in which date

and amount has been written on it. The petitioner being

accused in a criminal case is entitled to prove his defence in any

legal permissible manner he chooses to adopt. The Court is duty

bound to facilitate him in proving his defence, by producing such

evidence as he may feel appropriate and necessary. It will not

be appropriate for the Court to disallow such an application in

the absence of any cogent reason for doing so.

5. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and it is directed

that the cheque in question be sent to Forensic Science

Laboratory in Rohini for the opinion of the Hand-Writing Expert

on the following question:-

"Whether the date and amount in words and in figures on cheque Ext.CW-1/A was written on the same day and time when the said cheque was signed by the petitioner. In other words, the hand-writing expert should give the age of the writing pertaining to the date and amount on cheque Ext.CW-1/A."

6 The hand-writing expert shall send his report within four

weeks of the receipt of the cheque Ext.CW-1/A by FSL. The

cheque in question will be sent by the Trial Court to FSL within

one week of next date of hearing in this case.

The petition stands disposed of.

One copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court for

information and necessary action.

V.K. JAIN (JUDGE) JANUARY 19, 2010 J