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

2010 Supreme(Mad) 5546

S.PALANIVELU
A. Sivagnana Pandian – Appellant
Versus
M. Ravichandran – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
A.V.Arun, R.Venkateswara

JUDGMENT

(1) THE petitioner is accused in C.C. No. 44 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, THE case originated on the private complaint lodged by the respondent/complainant on the strength of a cheque delivered to him by this petitioner. When the case was in the part-heard stage, the petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to refer the cheque to the Forensic Science Expert to ascertain the age of the ink.

(2) IN the petition filed by him, it is stated that the respondent has falsely claimed that for getting the loan, the petitioner has delivered cheque for RS 9,00,000/-, that in the cheque the petitioner laid his signature alone intending to get a loan of RS 1,00,000/- only from the respondent and reposing confidence upon the respondent, he handed over the cheque to him. At the time of delivering the cheque, the petitioner's signature alone was there and other particulars were not filled up. So in order to institute a false case, the contents were filled in the cheque afterwards. Hence, the age of the ink utilised for signature by the petitioner has to be ascertained by the forensic expert. Then only, the factual back ground






























































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