Dismissed

Lokendra Singh S/O Sangram Singh B/C Rajput v. Prahlad Singh S/O Heer Singh B/C Rajput

Rajasthan HC16 Jul 2018CRLMP/3298/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan held that sending a bounced cheque for handwriting comparison to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur, is not feasible due to the laboratory's heavy workload in rape and murder cases. The petition to set aside the lower court's refusal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the PIL petition; upheld the lower court's refusal to send the cheque for comparison; permitted petitioner to examine a private handwriting expert.

Lokendra Singh S/O Sangram Singh B/C Rajput Vs Prahlad… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3298/2018

¶3

Lokendra Singh S/o Sangram Singh B/c Rajput

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Prahlad Singh S/o Heer Singh B/c Rajput

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vidhut Kumar Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shishram Saini & Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Order

¶11

16/07/2018

¶12

In the present case, the petitioner had issued a cheque, which on presentation had bounced. Consequently, the respondent had instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of the trial, the accusedpetitioner filed an application stating that the cheque be sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur for comparison by the handwriting expert.

¶13

This Court in the case of Rajkumar Sharma Vs. State of

¶14

Rajasthan & another, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition)

¶15

No.5149/2017 , decided on 06.03.2018 , has observed as

¶16

under: -

¶17

“Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying therein that the order dated 24.08.2017 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Deoli District Tonk, whereby the said Court refused to send the cheque, in question to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur, be set aside.

¶18

Allegedly, the petitioner had issued a cheque, in question, which on presentation had bounced.

¶19

[CRLMP-3298/2018]

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has denied all handwriting on the cheque, except his signatures. Counsel further contends that the petitioneraccused filed an application praying that the cheque, in question be sent to the handwriting expert at State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur for comparison of the handwriting.

¶22

Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is civil in nature. It is common knowledge that the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur is heavily over burdened with the reports to be submitted in the rape and murder cases. The reports in murder and rape cases are not being presented by the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur due to lack of infrastructure. In case, the cheque, in question in a cases arising out of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, are sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur its working shall be chocked forever.

¶23

Thus, no ground for interference is made out. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may examine private handwriting expert as defence witness, at his own cost, during the course of the trial.

¶24

In view of above, the present petition is disposed of.”

¶25

In view of the order passed herein above the cheque cannot be sent for comparison to the handwriting expert at the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶26

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the order passed by the trial Court, whereby sending of the cheque, in question to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur was refused is upheld. However, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be permitted to examine private handwriting expert at his own cost as defence witness.

¶27

In view of above, the present petition is disposed of.

¶28

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶29

Heena/86

Lokendra Singh S/O Sangram Singh B/C Rajput v. Prahlad Singh S/O Heer Singh B/C Rajput

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokendra Singh S/O Sangram Singh B/C Rajput v. Prahlad Singh S/O Heer Singh B/C Rajput

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan Khadi and Gramodyog Board Vs Enforcement Officer Provident Fund

Mojika Appliance Private Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Naresh Saraswat S/O Mahesh Chand B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan

Chetan Das Vs State of Raj and Anr.