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

1981 Supreme(Guj) 102

A.M.AHMADI, V.V.BEDARKAR
PRAVINKUMAR LALCHAND SHAH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: B.C.PATEL, D.D.Vyas, DAULAT C.TRIVEDI, M.B.SHAH

V. V. BEDARKAR, J.

( 1 ) DURING the trial of a criminal case wherein the question of handwriting is involved whether the accused are entitled to the copies of the enlarged photographs from the prosecution under the provisions of sec. 173 (5) and sec. 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the question which is involved in all these Misc. Criminal Applications.

( 2 ) THE accused the present applicants are being prosecuted before the Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under secs. 467 471 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the handwriting expert because the hand- writing expert had given opinion about the handwritings of the Court accused. At the trial stage the applicants made a request to the Court that because they are not supplied with the enlarged photographs of the disputed and admitted signatures it would not be possible for them to prepare their defence properly was also mentioned that the accused Wanted to take help of private handwriting expert to prepare the defence and also to find out whether the alleged handwriting were forged and also with the help of the private handwriting expert if necessary to cross-exam



















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