Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
GANESH RAM MEENA
Puspa Garg W/o Shri Harish Chand Garg – Appellant
Versus
Kamal Kumar Jhiriwal S/o Shri Indrabhan Jhirwal – Respondent
ORDER :
1. By filing this criminal misc. petition, the petitioner/complainant has made a challenge to the order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge No.3, Alwar (for short 'the learned revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No.76/2024, whereby the learned revisional Court allowed the revision petition filed by the non-petitioners/accused and set aside the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act) Cases No.2, Alwar (for short 'the learned trial court') in Case No. 23/1452/2021 and further ordered that for verification of the signatures alleged to be of the non-petitioners/accused on the disputed cheque, be got verified by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur by sending the cheque to the State FSL, Jaipur.
2. Vide order dated 01.10.2024, which was under challenge in the criminal revision petition, the learned trial court dismissed the application dated 08.08.2024 filed by the non-petitioners/ accused for sending the disputed cheque to the State FSL, Jaipur for verification of the signatures over it.
3. The brief facts of the case borne out from the pleadings are that the petitioner/ complaina
The court ruled that a trial court's order denying signature verification on a disputed cheque is not merely interlocutory and can be challenged in a revision petition, emphasizing the right to a fai....
The court emphasized the necessity of sending a disputed cheque for forensic examination to ascertain signature authenticity, ruling that the trial court's order was not merely interlocutory and thus....
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to provide sufficient evidence to rebut such presumption, which the petitioners failed to do.
A cheque issued for repayment establishes liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act; the burden to rebut the presumption of liability lies with the accused, who failed to provide sufficient evidenc....
The court emphasized the importance of independent expert testimony for establishing signature authenticity in forgery claims.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the right of the accused to fair trial and the need to provide an opportunity to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the N.I. Act, as emphas....
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
