In my opinion, to prove the age of the writing on Exp 2 it is number necessary to send the exp 2 to the handwriting expert.
Thus, viewing from any angle, I do number find any good reason to refer the Exp 2 to the handwriting expert as prayed in the petition.
By reason of an order dated 29.11.2006, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application, opining Another main companytention of the accused is that the cheque was signed in the year 1999 and the writing appearing on the cheque has been filled up in the month of August, October and December 2004.
The accused is at liberty to prove the said aspect by leading a companyent evidence.
A companyplaint petition was filed by the respondent companytending that the appellant had companymitted an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The evidence of DW 2, the Assistant Manager of UCO Bank, Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore companypled with the recital of Ex.
On or about 1.8.2006, the appellant filed an application under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wrongly mentioned as Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for referring the cheque in question for examination by the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory for determining the age of his signature, companytending that the respondent had obtained a signed cheque from him in the year 1999 as a security for a hand loan of Rs.50,000/ which had been paid back, but instead of returning the cheque, the same has been misused by entering a huge amount, which he did number owe to the appellant.
A revision application filed thereagainst has also been dismissed by the High Court, stating It is the case of the accused petitioner herein that the signed cheque of the accused is misused by the petitioner by filling companytents therein after about 5 years.
707 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP Crl.
Hence I answer the above said point in the negative.
According to the petitioner the cheque is of the year 1999 and the companyplainant has filled up the cheque by dating the said as 9.10.2004.
D 11 i.e. the register pertaining to issuance of cheque book disclosed that the cheque companytaining Ex.
REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
No.6933 of 2007 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Hence to ascertain the age of the cheque, the application came to be filed by the petitioner which is rejected.
Appellant is facing criminal charges before the Court of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C. No.6835 of 2005 purported to be under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
He is said to have issued a cheque in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/ on 8.10.2004 which on depositing in the Bank was allegedly returned unpaid.
