2012 (4) TMI 810 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the admissibility of expert witness evidence in a criminal case under section 482 Cr. P.C., the right of the accused to produce expert witness in defense, the necessity of examination of a handwriting expert, and the interlocutory nature of certain orders leading to the revision petition.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Admissibility of expert witness evidence
The petitioner filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to the accused's statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. The accused sought examination of a handwriting expert under section 243(2) Cr. P.C. to disprove her involvement. The MM initially dismissed this application, leading to a revision petition before the ASJ, who allowed the examination of the expert witness.

Issue 2: Right of the accused to produce expert witness
The complainant challenged the ASJ's order, arguing that the accused had previously filed similar applications for expert examination which were dismissed. The complainant contended that the accused's right to examine a handwriting expert was not maintainable due to the prior rejections. The ASJ, however, granted the accused one opportunity for expert examination in her defense.

Issue 3: Necessity of examination of handwriting expert
The complainant argued that the dishonored cheque was due to insufficient funds, not a difference in signatures. The complainant also highlighted that the Branch Manager confirmed the accused's signatures on the cheque. The complainant asserted that the examination of a handwriting expert was unnecessary as the MM had already compared the signatures and found no variance.

Issue 4: Interlocutory nature of orders leading to revision
The judgment emphasized that the accused had previously filed applications for expert examination, which were dismissed by the MM. The ASJ's order allowing the expert witness examination was deemed unwarranted, especially considering the specific directions for expeditious case disposal. The judgment concluded that the ASJ erred in entertaining the revision petition and set aside the order, disposing of the petition accordingly.