Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Smti. Gitima Das And Anr on 18 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010078672023
2025:GAU-AS:12903
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./364/2023
DIGANTA KALITA
S/O LATE HAREN KALITA
R/O VILL- DOLOIPARA
P.O. CHHAYGAON
P.S. CHHAYGAON
DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM
PIN-781124
VERSUS
SMTI. GITIMA DAS AND ANR
W/O SRI DIMBESWAR BARMAN
R/O VILL- DOLOIPARA
P.O. CHHAYGAON
DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM
PIN-781124
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : J U AHMED, MR. M AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR JITENDRA DAS (R-1),MR. SAILENDRA DEKA
(R-1)
Date of hearing : 30.07.2025.
Date of judgment : 18.09.2025
Page No.# 2/5
- BEFORE -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.
Deka, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.
2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, a challenge has been made to the Judgment of the Revisional Court dated
06.03.2023 in Criminal Revision No. 13/2020 as also the order of the Court of
first instance dated 25.10.2019 in C.R. Case No. 248/2017.
3. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner and
the respondent No. 1 are co-villagers and as such well known to each other. The
petitioner was in need of some money and borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) only from the respondent No.1 with a promise to repay
the same and also issued a cheque vide No. 319112 on 20.03.2017 as a
security. The petitioner returned the said borrowed money of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the respondent No. 1 in the end of March, 2017 and
asked to return back the cheque issued to her. But the Respondent No. 1 said to
the petitioner that the said cheque got misplaced somewhere and at that time
she could not trace out the same and will return back the said cheque when she
could trace out it. The petitioner believed the respondent No. 1 being a co-
Page No.# 3/5
villager. But it is a matter of surprise that the respondent No. 1 hatched ill
motive to get illegal gain manipulating the said cheque and made the numerical
"3" (March) and made it as "8" (August) in the date portion making the date of
issue of the cheque as 20-08-2017 instead of 20-03-2017 to gain the benefit
under the N.I. Act and made out a false Case under Section 138 of the N.I Act,
1881 R/W section 142 of the said Act, which was instituted before the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Amingaon as C.R Case No. 248/2017.
4. After the conclusion of the trial and when the case was at the stage of
arguments, the petitioner/accused submitted an application/petition being
Petition No. 3183 praying for sending the dishonoured cheque to the Forensic
Science Laboratory in order to get the same examined by handwriting expert in
view of the alleged overwriting of the numeral '8' in the date segment of the
cheque.
5. By the impugned order dated 25.10.2019, the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, rejected the said application. Being aggrieved, the
present petitioner/accused preferred the revision before the learned Sessions
Judge, Kamrup, which also came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated
06.03.2023. The present challenge is against the aforesaid two orders.
6. I have heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.
Deka, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent.
7. The very limited question which is required to be considered and decided
in the instant revision is whether the learned Trial Court committed any illegality
or impropriety in refusing to send the cheque for Forensic Examination by a
Page No.# 4/5
Handwriting Expert.
8. When the numeral '3' is connected to '8' by overwriting, the sample
handwriting that would be available for examination by the expert would be a
minuscule one and it is extremely doubtful whether the expert would be capable
of making any determination as to whether the alleged conversion was made by
the hand of someone other than the accused/drawer of the cheque. Therefore,
even assuming that there existed some overwriting, it could well have been by
the hand of the accused/drawer. If on the other hand, the date segment had
been left blank, to be filled up by the payee, then the payee would be well
within his right u/s 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to insert the date, even
an overwritten one. Whether the bank accepts the same or not is of course
another matter. However, the accused/petitioner as DW-1 has in his evidence
admitted to have issued a cheque on 20.03.2017, but refrained from clearly
stating that he had put the said date upon the cheque, which itself indicates the
possibility that the date segment was left blank, the consequence of which has
already been discussed above. In either case, there was no probable or
reasonable cause for the learned Trial Court to have sent the cheque for
Forensic Examination and the Court is not expected to embark upon a fishing
expedition at the instance of either party, especially when no decisive outcome
could reasonably be expected.
9. In view of the above discussion, this revision is held to be devoid of merit
and is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Page No.# 5/5
Comparing Assistant
