1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.158 of 2026 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Pawan Kumar & Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus Vikas Sharma …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who is an accused in proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short “Act”) at the behest of the respondent-complainant (in short “complainant”), is aggrieved by order dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure P-2), whereby an application filed by him under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for comparison of his signatures, came to be rejected. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for. 3. Precisely, in the application detailed hereinabove, prayer came to be made at the behest of the accused for comparison of his signatures with his admitted signatures appearing on the cheque in question. Accused 2 averred in the application that he never signed any cheque or document, rather same was filled by the complainant himself. Prayer made on behalf of the accused came to be vehemently opposed at the behest of the complainant, who stated that accused, in his cross-examination, has already admitted factum of his having issued cheque as well as signatures thereupon. This Court finds that accused not only admitted factum of his having issued cheque as well as signatures thereupon, but he also failed to put any suggestion to the complainant qua cheque being misplaced. Moreover, no such averment with regard to misplacement of the cheque ever came to be made in the application. 4. Leaving everything aside, bank, while dishonouring the cheque in question, nowhere assigned reason “signatures differed”, rather same came to be returned with remarks “Funds insufficient”. Once bank, with whom admitted signatures of the accused are available, has nowhere disputed factum with regard to signatures of the accused on the cheque in question, coupled with the fact that accused himself admitted factum of his having issued cheque as well as signatures thereupon, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Court below, while rejecting the application filed by the accused under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act for comparison of signatures. Present petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge July 14, 2026 (sunil)