Petition for forensic expert opinion on cheque signature dismissed due to delayed filing and failure to raise defence during trial under Section 138 NI Act

Gujarat HC dismissed a petition seeking forensic expert opinion on disputed cheque signature in dishonour case. Petitioner denied signing the cheque but failed to raise this defence during trial or in statutory notice reply under Section 138(B) NI Act. The application was filed in 2023, three years after the 2019 criminal appeal, indicating negligence and attempt to prolong proceedings. Court found no grounds for supervisory jurisdiction interference, noting petitioner's silence during trial and failure to challenge earlier rejection of similar application.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the order dated 25.7.2023 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar.
2. Rejection of the application to compare the petitioner's specimen signature with the signature on the impugned cheque.
3. Examination of the officer of the post office to prove non-receipt of notice.
4. Dismissal of the application for taking additional evidence at the appellate stage.

Summary:

Issue 1: Quashing of the Order Dated 25.7.2023
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 25.7.2023 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, which dismissed the application Exh.35 in Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2019. The petitioner argued that the learned Session Judge committed a gross error in dismissing the application, asserting that additional evidence was necessary to secure the ends of justice.

Issue 2: Rejection of the Application to Compare Signatures
The petitioner had borrowed Rs. 10,00,000 from the respondent and issued a cheque that was returned due to insufficient funds. The petitioner denied the signature on the cheque and filed an application on 13.06.2019 to compare his specimen signature with the signature on the cheque and sought a handwriting expert's opinion. The trial court rejected this application on the same day, citing the petitioner's mala fide motive to delay the proceedings.

Issue 3: Examination of the Officer of the Post Office
The petitioner also made an application to examine the officer of the post office to prove the non-receipt of notice sent by the respondent. The trial court did not examine the authenticity of the letter obtained from the post office by the respondent, which was considered while convicting the petitioner.

Issue 4: Dismissal of the Application for Additional Evidence
After being convicted in Criminal Case No.2005/2018, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.153/2019 and an application Exh.35 under section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for taking additional evidence at the appellate stage. The learned Session Court dismissed this application, noting that the petitioner did not challenge the order passed below Exh.38 by the trial court and did not raise any questions regarding the signature on the cheque during the trial. The court believed that the petitioner's application was an afterthought to prolong the proceedings.

Court's Observations and Conclusion:
The court referred to various judgments, including Brigadier Sukhjeet Singh (Retired) MVC Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim, emphasizing that additional evidence at the appellate stage is permissible only in exceptional cases where it serves the interests of justice. The court noted that the petitioner had not provided a valid reason for not challenging the order below Exh.38 and had been negligent in raising the issue of the signature on the cheque.

The court concluded that the petitioner aimed to prolong the proceedings and had not demonstrated that additional evidence was necessary for elucidation of the truth or for the pronouncement of the judgment. Therefore, the petition was dismissed in limine at the admission stage.

---