This court allowed a criminal writ petition partially, quashing the order allowing additional evidence but confirming the order permitting a handwriting expert referral in a cheque dishonour case.
The petition is partly allowed. The order below Exh.30 is set aside. The order below Exh.31 is confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1) criwp379.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
924 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.379 OF 2021
DILIP @ RAJENDRA MANSUKHLAL BAFNA VERSUS DR. VASANT SHANKARRAO MANE
Mr. Mahesh K. Bhosale, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. P. S. Dighe, Advocate for the respondent
CORAM:N. R. BORKAR, J.
DATE:24-11-2021
P. C.
. This petition takes an exception to the
orders dated 15-02-2021 passed below Exh.30 and
Exh.31 in Summary Criminal Case No. 603 of 2018.
2.The respondent herein had filed the
complaint case against the present petitioner for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent after
adducing his evidence, has moved an application at
Exh. 30 seeking permission to adduce the additional
evidence in view of certain questions asked to him
in cross-examination. The learned Magistrate has
allowed the said application.
1 of 5
(2) criwp379.21
3.The respondent has moved another
application at Exh. 31 seeking permission to refer
the cheque in question and affidavit at Exh. 29 to
hand writing expert. The learned Magistrate has
allowed the said application also.
4.I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the
respondent.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the learned Magistrate erred in
allowing the application at Exh. 30 which came to be
moved by the respondent just to fill up the lacunas
in his case. It is submitted that in such
circumstances, the trial court ought not to have
allowed the said application at Exh. 30.
6.As regards the order below Exh. 30 the
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has not disputed the signature on the
cheque in question. It is submitted that considering
these facts, the learned Magistrate ought not to
have referred the cheque to hand writing expert.
2 of 5
(3) criwp379.21
7.On the other hand learned counsel for the
respondent submits that the trial court rightly
allowed the application at Exh. 30. It is submitted
that for just decision of the case, the trial court
rightly permitted the respondent to adduce further
evidence. It is, accordingly submitted that no
interference is called for in the order impugned
passed below Exh.30. In support of the submission
the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgment of this court in the case ofKarim
Hasan Patel Vs State of Maharashtra reported in 2012
ALL MR (Cri) 2378. So also, the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofNatasha Singh
Vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in
(2013) 5 SCC 741.
8.As regards the order below Exh. 31 the
learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
the trial court was justified in referring the
cheque in question and affidavit to hand writing
expert. It is submitted that though the petitioner
has admitted the signature on the cheque however,
according to him blank cheque was issued to some
third party. It is submitted that thus, the trial
court committed no error in referring the cheque to
3 of 5
(4) criwp379.21
hand writing expert. It is submitted that the
petitioner by affidavit at Exh.29 has acknowledged
receipt of the amount however, the petitioner has
disputed the genuineness of the affidavit. It is
submitted that considering these facts, the trial
court was justified in referring the cheque and
affidavit to hand writing expert.
9.I have perused the application at Exh. 30.
Perusal of the application shows that certain
questions were asked in the cross-examination and by
referring to those questions the said application
came to be moved. If according to the respondents
further evidence which he wants to adduce is
necessary for just decision of the case, then it is
not understood as to why it was not adduced at first
instance itself, as it is not the case of the
respondent that there was any impediment in adducing
the said evidence. The application is completely
based on the questions asked in the cross-
examination. The attempt, therefore, appears to be
to fill up the lacunas. Considering these facts, the
order passed below Exh. 30 cannot be sustained.
10.As regards referring the cheque to the hand
4 of 5
(5) criwp379.21
writing expert, the defence of the petitioner is
that blank cheque was issued. Similarly, the
petitioner has disputed the genuineness of the
affidavit. Considering the defence of the
petitioner, the trial court was justified in
referring the cheque as well as affidavit to hand
writing expert. Therefore, no interference is called
for in the order passed below Exh. 31. Hence, the
following order is passed:
ORDER
i. The petition is partly allowed.
ii.The order impugned passed below Exh.30
is set aside.
iii.The order impugned passed below Exh. 31
is confirmed.
VishalK/criwp379.21
5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed an error in allowing the respondent to adduce additional evidence via application Exh.30.
Whether the trial court was justified in referring the cheque and affidavit to a handwriting expert via application Exh.31.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Karim Hasan Patel Vs State of MaharashtraReferred¶19
Karim Hasan Patel Vs State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2378
Natasha Singh Vs Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶19
Natasha Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 5 SCC 741 · Who else cites this
Dilip @ Rajendra Mansukhlal Bafna
Dr. Vasant Shankarrao Mane
N. R. Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court