Back
2009(2) Bankmann 499 (Del.)
DELHI HIGH COURT
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.
Jaipal Singh Rana –Petitioner
versus
Swaraj Pal Singh and Anr. –Respondents
Criminal M.C. No. 7821 of 2006 and Criminal M.A. No. 13331 of 2006
Decided on 22.2.2008
(ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Petition for quashing of ‘rejected’—Held: Parties’ evidence were closed. Final arguments were heard. Complaint was adjourned again and again—Impugned order calls for no interference. Petition is dismissed. (Paras 1, 2 to 5 and 21)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The Magistrate does not have the authority to review or reconsider his own previous orders or those of his predecessor. Any attempt to do so would be impermissible and could undermine the integrity of the judicial process (!) (!) .
The scope of a Magistrate’s power to refer documents, such as cheques, for expert opinion is limited to stages where such a request has not been previously rejected and has attained finality through a final order or judgment. Once a request for expert opinion is explicitly denied and the order becomes final, the Magistrate cannot suo motu revisit and act upon that order again (!) (!) (!) .
The order rejecting the request for expert opinion, which has become final, cannot be subject to re-examination or reversal by the Magistrate at a later stage of the proceedings (!) (!) .
The mere presence of differences in handwriting on the cheque, such as the payee’s name or amount, does not automatically warrant sending the cheque for expert opinion, especially if the signatures are admitted and the cheque’s validity is not otherwise disputed (!) (!) .
The primary concern in such cases is whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a liability and whether the signatures are authentic, rather than the handwriting of the entire body of the cheque. The law emphasizes that the signature is the critical element for validity (!) (!) .
The trial court has broad discretion to refer documents for expert examination if it deems such action necessary for the ends of justice. However, this power should be exercised within the bounds of prior orders and final judgments. Repeated or suo motu references after a final order have been legally impermissible (!) (!) (!) .
The law supports that the court can compare handwriting either directly or through expert assistance, but it cannot override a final, unchallenged order refusing such reference. The court’s role is to ensure a fair trial, and this includes respecting final orders and procedural limits (!) (!) (!) .
The order allowing the case to proceed without further expert opinion was based on the law that the earlier rejection of the expert opinion request was final and binding. The subsequent attempt to refer the cheques for expert opinion was therefore unsustainable (!) (!) .
The case emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural rules and final orders, and underscores that courts should not revisit or review their own final decisions, as doing so would be contrary to the principles of judicial discipline and procedural fairness (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal principles reinforce that once an application or request has been explicitly denied and that order has attained finality, the court cannot suo motu revisit or act upon that issue again, ensuring procedural consistency and judicial discipline (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.—An interesting question arises in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) concerning the scope of the powers of a Metropolitan Magistrate (“MM”), trying a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) to ask for the opinion of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (“CFSL”) on the handwriting on the cheques in question despite an application filed by the complainant for the same relief having been dismissed earlier by the learned MM.
Background facts :
2. The brief facts to filing of this petition are that a complaint being Criminal Case No. 429/1 was filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 138 N.I. Act in the court of learned MM on 18th March, 2002 with regard to the dishonour of two cheques: cheque No.315106 dated 20th August, 2001 for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 and cheque No.315108 dated 28th December, 2001 for a sum of Rs.32,00,000. The allegation in the complaint was that the respondent Swaraj Pal Singh had issued the aforementioned cheques in favour of the complainant towards discharge of an admitted liability. Both cheques were, on presentation to the bank for payment, dishonoured with the remarks “insufficient funds”. After issuing notices demanding payment, the petitioner filed the aforementioned complaint.
3. On 17th September 2002 the learned MM passed a summoning order. The application by the respondent recalling the summoning order was dismissed by the learned MM an order dated 9th February 2004. One of the contentions raised by the respondent in support of prayer for recalling the summoning order was that the cheques in question were entrusted to the complainant as a part of the business transactions between the parties and were not meant to be encashed. It was stated that the cheques had been tampered with, filled by the complainant or his associates to make alteration in the amount and the dates without the consent of the drawer i.e. respondent. While rejecting this contention the learned MM in the said order dated 9th February, 2004 observed as under:
“The accused has filed application for recalling of the summoning order on the grounds that the said cheques were not issued on account of any liability and the said cheques were given to the complainant as security for business purposes. The accused has also alleged that the accused misused the said cheques after tampering the same. It is important to note that the accused has admitted that the cheques have been signed by him and were issued in favour of the complainant. The allegations of the accused/applicant that the cheques were not issued in discharge of liability requires evidence which the parties have yet to lead. Further the other allegation as mentioned in the application that the complainant has misused the said cheques after tampering the same can also be not decided without evidence which the parties have yet to lead.”
4. By a subsequent order dated 20th April 2004 the learned MM framed charges under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The complainant’s evidence was then closed on 22nd December 2004. Meanwhile, Criminal Revision Petition No. 440 of 2004 filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 9th February 2004 passed by the learned MM was dismissed as withdrawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ).
5. Several adjournments were granted for the production of defence witnesses. On 15th July 2005 the respondent examined himself as DW1 and was also cross-examined in part. The cross-examination was concluded on 17th August 2005. DW2 was examined on 7th December 2005 and thereafter the defence evidence was closed. The case was listed for final arguments for 13th February, 2006 and after the arguments of the complainant were heard on that date the case was adjourned to 15th February, 2006. Again an adjournment was granted for 15th February, 2006. Thereafter on 8th March, 2006 by a detailed order the trial court di
SupremeToday
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
