Surinder Singh v. Amrik Singh And ORS

CRM M-36629 of 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM M-36629 of 2012 Date of decision : 07.01.2016 Surinder Singh ....Petitioner V/s Amrik Singh & ors.

....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Amandeep Rana, Advocate for Mr. Satish Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate for respondents no. 1 & 2. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

RAJAN GUPTA J.

Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by trial court rejecting application under section 311 Cr.P.C. Petitioner has impugned the order. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, evidence of the handwriting expert is necessary to prove that different pen and ink was used to make additions and alterations.

Prayer has been opposed by learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 & 2 on the ground that prosecution is merely trying to fill up lacunae in the case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. FIR was registered on the complaint of Surinder Singh (petitioner herein). He alleged that he had handed-over a cheque of `30,000/- for purchasing the pesticide. Same was changed to `1,30,000/- by the accused. Said amount was later withdrawn from account of the complainant. Pursuant to the complaint, investigation AJAY KUMAR 2016.01.13 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM M-36629 of 2012 ensued and challan was filed on 02.03.2012. At the initial stage, instant application was moved under section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to examine the handwriting expert for the purpose of proving additions and alterations. Application has been rejected by the court below with the observation that original cheque was not taken into possession by the investigating officer on the ground that bank official refused to hand over the same to him. Besides, prosecution was merely trying to fill up lacunae in the case. I find the order suffers from legal infirmity. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Malkeet Singh, who is present in court, submits that no prosecution witness has been examined till now. The power vested in the court under section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be construed liberally.

In the eventuality, prosecution intends to examine the expert for the purpose of proving additions and alterations in the cheque in question, same deserves to be accepted. Plea that prosecution is trying to fill up lacunae in its case is unacceptable as the case is still at its initial stage.

Under the circumstances, impugned order is hereby setaside. Prosecution shall be allowed to examine the witness as prayed for in the application. Needless to observe, however, that this shall be subject to the condition that such evidence is admissible as per law.

Allowed in aforesaid terms.

January 07, 2016 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE AJAY KUMAR 2016.01.13 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document