Radheshyam Harijan vs Sua Lal Saini

The petitioner by way of this petition has challenged the order by which his application moved u/s 45 of Evidence Act seeking opinion of expert by

third person has been rejected in a case filed u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while he has been admitted his signatures on the cheque in view of the statement made by the

respondent that cheque was filled up in his presence, it has become necessary to get the handwriting expert's opinion with regard to the entry of the

contents of the cheque as the case of the petitioner was that he had given blank cheque as a security.

The provision of Section 45 of the Evidence Act relates to seeking of opinion by the court from experts in relation to all the fields for which the court

may so require. So far as the handwriting part is concerned, there is a specific provision u/s 73 of the Evidence Act where court itself satisfy with

regard to the handwriting signature or seal or other admitted documents in this regard, the discretion is exclusively available for the that the provision

of Section 45 of the Evidence Act may or may not be invoked by the court.

Keeping in view the above if facts of the present case are noticed that the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate(N.I. Act Cases)NO.1, Jaipur

Metropolitan has passed detailed order on 17.11.2018 and after considered the law as laid down by the this Court in the case of ""Asha Vs. Brijmohan

Chabara"" reported in2014(Suppl)Civil Court Cases 642(Raj.) and law laid down by the High Court as reported in 2017(1)NIJ(Raj.) in the case

of""Suresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan"" ; has reached to the conclusion that there is no requirement of sending the cheques for FSL

purpose, the view taken by the concerned Magistrate does not warrant any interference as admittedly, the petitioner has admitted his signatures on the

cheques and so far as the other ground which the petitioner wants to take, he would always be free to take the same at the time of trial.

In view of above, this petition is without any merit and the same is therefore dismissed.