Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Sita Ram – Appellant
Versus
Chaman Lal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog in Criminal Case No. 326 of 2015 titled Chaman Lal versus Sita Ram, vide which, the application filed by the petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court) under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act for sending the cheque to Chemical Examiner/Forensic Expert was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the petitioner/accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘NI Act’). It was asserted that parties were known to each other. The complainant is the sole proprietor of Chaman Trading Company. The accused purchased the construction material from the complainant, and he issued a cheque of Rs.4,90,000/- to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the cheque, which was dishonoured. The
Material alterations to a cheque render it void under Section 87 of the NI Act, and accused must be afforded the opportunity to prove their defence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of a person who signs a cheque and the importance of allowing the accused a fair chance to send the document to the expert to know th....
Material alteration in cheque's payee account number without drawer's consent or authentication renders it void under Section 87 NI Act; complainant bears burden to explain; rebuts presumptions under....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the onus on the accused to raise a probable defense and the requirements for rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrume....
The absence of the company as a party precludes the vicarious liability of its directors under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Point of law: Negotiable Instruments - when a cheque is issued for a valid consideration with no dispute regarding the signature, amount and name, it cannot be said that, putting a date on the cheque....
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 under Section 139 of the NI Act applies unless substantively rebutted, and any alteration in the cheque must be proven materially by the accused.
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....
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
