IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2025 Uday Raj Singh ....Revisionist Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents Present:- Mr. Divyaman S Sen, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Siddharth Bisht and Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 25.10.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No.125 of 2023, Uday Raj Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, by the court of I District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (“the appeal”). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The revisionist was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in Criminal Case No.1370 of 2017, Ashok Bajaj Vs. Uday Raj Singh, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rudrapur (“the case”). This order was appealed by the revisionist in the appeal. 4. In the appeal, the revisionist filed an application under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal 2 Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) seeking permission of the Court to take on record an expert report with regard to signature and handwriting on the cheque in question. This permission was denied. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist has been denying his signature on the cheque; the revisionist got the cheque in question examined by some expert; the revisionist just wants to place that expert report on the record of the appeal. He has referred to the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Sethi Vs. Budhi Prakash and Another, 2014 SCC OnLine Utt 1223. 6. In the case of Raj Kumar Sethi (supra), such permission to take on record additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code was rejected, but this Court had, while allowing the petition, permitted the petitioner of that case to file additional evidence in appeal. 7. The factual matrix of the instant case is quite distinct. During trial, the revisionist did file an application for examining the hand writing and signature on the cheque from some experts. That application was rejected by the trial court on 06.06.2022, against which the revision was preferred in the court of sessions, which was rejected on 04.11.2022. 3 Thereafter, the revisionist filed a petition in this Court, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Application No.1132 of 2023, Uday Raj Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand (“the petition”), which was dismissed on 13.06.2023. 8. Two more facts need consideration. In his initial examination under Section 251 of the Code, the revisionist had totally denied his signature on the cheque. He had stated that though the cheque belongs to him, but he did not give the cheque to the private respondent. But at the stage of Section 313 of the Code, when examined on 17.05.2022, the revisionist was not sure. He said that he is not sure about his signature as to whether the signature on the cheque is that of the revisionist or not. It may be noted that after examination of the revisionist under Section 313 of the Code, in the case, the first application for examining the signature and handwriting on the cheque was dismissed by the trial court on 06.06.2022. As stated that order has been confirmed uptil this Court. 9. While deciding the petition, this Court had, on 13.06.2023, observed that, “The proceedings and the diligence with which the applicant has taken up the case before the learned Trial Court itself spells out that it was nothing but rather a deliberate effort 4 adopted by the applicant to linger the proceedings, though, despite of the fact that no prejudice has been caused to the applicant because his rights are still protected under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the signatures appearing on the instrument, which he otherwise has made a contradictory statement under Section 215 (sic 251) and 313 of Cr.P.C., are being tried to be overridden by a report being solicited on the application being filed by the applicant for verification of the signatures by an expert. It is too late in a day, in a summary proceeding to file such type of an application for verification of the signatures by finger print experts.” 10. The revisionist was denied the opportunity to get the signature and handwriting on the cheque examined by the handwriting expert. That order has attained finality. What the revisionist wanted to do directly by way of seeking examination of handwriting and signature on the cheque by an expert, he is now trying to do that indirectly. The revisionist had been denied to obtain expert opinion. Now he wants to file some expert opinion in the appeal. 11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the 5 court below has rightly dismissed the application of the revisionist. The impugned order does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed, at the stage of admission itself. 12. The revision is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 10.01.2025 Ravi Bisht RAVI BISHT Digitally signed by RAVI BISHT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=ded921477e34a304cbcb0b52d4a59f 37e6d2018d38d0b669a5c068799391e6bb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AA64B1F44E60E652AE5485ED 764961E4E52FD29C6F03C20917020ED09340 5536, cn=RAVI BISHT Date: 2025.01.10 02:25:35 +05'30'