Back
Kalyani Baskar – Appellant
Versus
M. S. Sampornam – Respondent
What is the scope of the Magistrate’s powers under Section 243(2) Cr.P.C. to send a disputed cheque for handwriting examination in a trial under Section 138 NI Act? How does denial of an opportunity to adduce handwriting evidence affect the right to a fair trial in a cheque bounce case? What are the circumstances under which a criminal court should grant a request to obtain a handwriting expert report after the prosecution has closed its evidence?
JUDGMENT
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. - Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave, directed against the order dated 10.2.2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, involves a question with regard to the scope of the powers of the Magistrate under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.]. It arises out of these circumstances.
3. A complaint has been preferred by Mrs. M. S. Sampoornam, complainant-respondent herein, against Mrs. Kalyani Baskar, appellant herein, and her husband for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short "the Act"] before the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, Chennai, alleging that the appellant along with her husband jointly signed and issued a cheque No. 037296 for discharging their liability. On presentation of the said cheque, it was dishonoured for insufficient funds. Though the notice was served upon both the accused persons yet no reply has been sent by them. Thereafter, observing all the formalities as contemplated under the Act, the complainant-respondent had preferred C.C. No. 439/1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, Chennai, against the appellant
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
