← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/7564/2018allowed

Twinkle v. Anil Kumar

2023-08-02Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri3 pages



     

  !



    



"#$

$%&'& (

) )

        

  *+ ) ,

, ,  

    

  !

   "  !

    

!



, ,  - ) ./"01 #    $! %&'

!

(

!

)

  #+ ,# ',#&-. /#0   $" 

     1   *

  2  (      $" 

  

 

$   " 

*



    "

  '

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case where the petitioner is an accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial was although complete and the matter was fixed for recording the statement under Section 313

 and the petitioner had moved an application under Section 311

 

(

 for examination of handwriting expert on the ground that on the cheques which were the subject matter of the dispute there were overwriting which can be seen with naked eye and the photocopies of the cheques have been attached with the present petition as Annxures P-2 and P3 which on the face of it shows that overwriting has been done. He submitted that the application has been filed only for the limited purpose for getting the cheques examined from a handwriting expert and since the aforesaid examination is based upon the visible and clear overwriting goes to the root of the matter and therefore the examination of a handwriting expert for the purpose of the ascertaining the genuineness of the cheques is required for just adjudication of the entire case. He submitted that only one opportunity was required which has been erroneously declined by the learned Magistrate.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court that in the present case notice of motion was issued on 21.02.2018 wherein an interim order was passed that passing of final judgment shall remain stayed and now it is almost five years that the case is pending before this Court and it also caused the delay and therefore mere one opportunity as required by the petitioner to examine the handwriting expert would not be prejudiced the interest of any of the parties.

4.

On the other hand,       "    !

      $ !

$





*



! "

 $ $



"  !

!*

  

$"



 "

 



2   

  !



 2

  

*

  #3&

62



!*$

! 

*

! *   "$"

( 

"$ 

" ',#&

"



"!

*   

 "!

.* !  *.

  *$ 

!

"  $

  *

 

  )  .   /'    /3      *  

 

! 



"

     !

 " 



 

  !







  

  !

 *

 * ! !! 

 



* 



"



2

!      !

         *

  *

    

    



!

!     

  2    ! 

  !

  !        

  

          

  * 

     #+ ,# ',#&    $"

)    $*   !!  

 "

.

 *.

$

"   ! #, ,,,8/

 .

, , 1

 

232'#

-

   

*  :86



$  :86