Look at Me Enterprises, Balasore … v. Jena
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 4889 of 2024 Look at Me Enterprises, Balasore …. Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Jena, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Another …. Opposite Party(s)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC Mr. S.K. Bhanjdeo, Adv CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. 01. 1. 2.
Decision
ORDER 17.03.2025 Heard. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned JMFC, Balasore in ICC Case No.748 of 2023, whereby his application praying to send the subject instruments (cheque) to verify the veracity of the same has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that throughout, his case has been that the signature appearing in the subject cheque has been forged and it was stolen. He has taken me to the reply dated 16.08.2023 given by his counsel in response to the notice under Section 138 (b) of the N.I. Act. Para-1 of the said reply is relevant, which is reproduced below:- Page 1 of 5 “1. That you are a inner garment, Jokey Company business man and my client is a order supplier in drinking water and you know my client since long and you pressurize to my client to supply your items in various shops and you are a B.J.D. leader renowned politician and also my client was a B.J.D. post holder in Balsore municipality. So you are close to my client and there after my client leave the BJD and join with BJP so have political grudge and though you close to my client and manage to theft my client’s cheque and put forge signature in the name of my client and with a malafide intention you deposit the said cheque and the said cheque returned due to signature.” On the basis of the aforementioned stand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was inescapable on the part of the trial court to send the cheque to the hand writing experts. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce vrs. Prabodh Kumar Tewari passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1260 of 2022, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1089, to substantiate his case. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 however strenuously opposed the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that although the petitioner has taken a stand that the signature appearing in the cheque has been forged but when the original documents were brought on record as exhibits, there was no objection raised by the petitioner. He further submits that when the complainant was examined as P.W.1, there was no question put to the complainant in that regard. He has pointed out paragraph-4 of Page 2 of 5 the impugned order to substantiate his case which is extracted hereunder:- “I have perused the case record and it is found that on dtd. 19.02.2024 the complainant was examined and produced original documents which were marked as Exhibits and vide order dtd. 22.03.2024 the complainant has been cross examined and discharged fully. However, during such course of examination the Ld. Advocate for the accused has nowhere raised any objection as to the original documents filed by the complainant. Also, it is evident from the deposition sheet of 19.02.2024 that the documents were marked as Exhibits without any objection from the side of accused.” 5. I have perused the record and gone through the documents placed on record and the judgments cited by both the parties at the Bar. The trial court while rejecting the application of the petitioner has also observed as under;- “In the present case, Ld. Advocate for the accused has admitted the signature over the alleged cheque which is very clear from the evidence of PW1. It is not a case of accused person that he either signed the cheque or parted the cheque under any threat or coercion. Moreover the accused person has not filed any past documents relating to his signatures and past cheque in order to verify his signature with the disputed signature on the alleged cheque. It seems that mere filing a petition without past signature over other cheques and other documents is only to delay the case. That apart the accused has not filed any criminal case relating to present disputed cheque at police station. Even though, in reply to the demand notice of the complainant, the accused had taken the plea that the alleged cheque has been stolen but no document with regard to that has been filed by the accused during his evidence. Page 3 of 5 So, considering the above facts of this case and said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the interest of justice I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to send the instrument to handwriting expert. Accordingly, the petition filed by the accused stands rejected. Put up on 03.01.25 for further evidence from the side of accused.” 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the trial of the case is at the fag end and the evidence has already been closed and the matter has been fixed for final disposal. Therefore, at this stage, interference of this Court will prolong the conclusion of the trial. He further submits that under Section 143 (2) of N.I. Act, there is statutory stipulation that the complaint of the present nature should be concluded as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months. 7. I have taken into consideration the fact scenario of the present case and I am of the considered view that since the matter is at fag end, referring the cheque to the hand writing expert would be further delaying the proceeding. Moreover, the petitioner has already allowed the original document to be exhibited without there being any objection. Hence, in the fitness of the situation, it would be expedient that the petitioner shall file his specimen signature of past documents before the court below. The learned trial court while deciding the matter compare the specimen signature with the signature appearing in the cheque in accordance with Section 73 of Page 4 of 5 the Evidence Act and decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. Since the complaint case is pending from 2023, the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment before the trial court. He shall furnish his specimen signature and past documents appearing his original signature before the trial court for comparising the same with the signature appearing in the cheque on the date to be fixed by the trial court. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC is disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Mar-2025 10:48:02 Page 5 of 5