Back
K. BABU
Tomy. T. J. – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, the complainant in C.C No.864 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal challenges the order dated 20.10.2021 in CMP No.880 of 2016. The petitioner filed a complaint alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the party respondent/accused before the Trial Court. The court took cognizance of the offence. The accused appeared on summons. He pleaded not guilty to the particulars of offence read over to him. The Court proceeded with the trial. The complainant was examined as PW1. He gave evidence that the accused filled up the cheque in his presence.
2. The accused contended that he has not filled up the cheque, but admitted the signature. The accused then filed the above referred CMP requesting to send the cheque and his admitted writings for comparison by experts in the Forensic Science Laboratory. The learned Magistrate allowed the application. This order is under challenge.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submitted that as the accused admitted the signature in the cheque, there is no requirement to send the cheque for comparison as when a drawer signs a cheque and hands
Dishonour of cheque – Examination of disputed cheque by Forensic Science Laboratory is not necessary where accused has admitted his signature in cheque.
The accused has the right to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt and must be granted an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal, including the examination of a handwriting expert.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the accused's right to a fair trial, entitlement to lead evidence to prove innocence, and the provisions of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal ....
Expert opinions are not conclusive evidence; repeated requests for forensic examination after an unfavorable report are impermissible in trial proceedings.
A cheque's validity remains intact despite entries by a third party unless proof shows lack of intention by the drawer regarding those entries.
The court established that due process must be followed in forensic examinations, particularly in cases involving the validity of signatures on negotiable instruments, to prevent miscarriages of just....
The authority of the holder in due course to complete stamped instruments and the lack of a mandate for the drawer to fill up the entire instrument by himself.
Once the signatures are admitted, the filling of the body of the cheque by another person is immaterial, and no useful purpose would be served by comparing the handwriting. The accused has a valuable....
The court emphasized the importance of independent expert testimony for establishing signature authenticity in forgery claims.
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
