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

N.A.BRITTO
Prabhakar Xembhu – Appellant
Versus
Surendra V. Pai – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Arun Bras De Sa for Applicant
M. S. Sonak & P. S. Rao for Respondents

ORDER

N. A. Britto, J. : The short question for consideration before this Court is whether the exercise of discretion by the learned J.M.F.C. in rejecting the application dated 11-3-2005 is proper and legal ?

2. To answer the said question a few facts are required to be stated. The applicant herein is the accused in C.C. No.412/OA/04/B in which he is being prosecuted by the respondent/Complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act, for short) for bouncing of two cheques in the sum of Rs.3,35,000/- and Rs.60,000/- dated 4-12-2003 and 4-7-2004 respectively. The applicant/accused did not deny that he had signed the said two cheques but it was his contention that the body of the cheque or the remaining particulars were not written by him. Likewise, it was his contention that he had not signed the A.D. card of the statutory notice sent to him by the Complainant.

3. After the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Code, for short), the accused filed an application dated 11-3-2005 praying therein that the said two cheques be sent to the handwriting expert(Government Examiner of Questioned Documents) at Hy















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