SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Bom) 1749

P.D.KODE
Vinod Maroti Mehare – Appellant
Versus
Jitendra s/o. Pralhad Kapse – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Miss P.R. CHAWHAN, Adv. for Applicant.
Mr. AKTAR ANSARI, h/f. Mr. HARISH DANGRE, Advs. for Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. The applicant is prosecuted for commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground of a cheque given by him to the complainant for the legal debt, had bounced after presentation and thereafter failed to pay the demanded amount mentioned in the demand notice served upon him by complainant within the stipulated period. The applicant-accused has filed an application for sending the cheques in question to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for determining age of the ink thereon.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant urges that rejection of the application had deprived the applicant of an opportunity to substantiate his defence in the case. The submission is refuted by learned Counsel for the opponent by submitting that the defence of the applicant before the trial Court was that blank cheques were handed over and as such rejection of the said application is unlikely to cause any prejudice to the applicant, as the said aspect is wholly irrelevant to the issues involved in the case.

4. After giving anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned Counsel f




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top