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

2015 Supreme(Mad) 229

S.MANIKUMAR
A. Inayathullah – Appellant
Versus
A. Ramesh – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:E. Kannadasan, Advocate.

Judgment

1. Request of the petitioner to refer the disputed cheque dated 18.02.2013 to the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh,to find out the age of the signature, has been rejected, vide order made in Crl. M.P. No. 2070 of 2014 in C.C. No. 77 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Vellore District dated 02.12.2014 and that the same is impugned in this Criminal Revision Case on the grounds inter alia that the Court below has failed to consider the petitioner's case that he has not issued the cheque to the respondent and from the very beginning, the petitioner has denied issuance of the cheque.

2. Reliance is placed on the decision in Elumalai Vs. Subramani, reported in 2011 (3) CTC 616, this Court held as follows:

The aforenoted opinions of the reputed authors on this subject as narrated above would make it abundantly clear that it is not impossible to discover age of the ink. Hence, the plea that the procedures have not evolved so far in this country is no longer available and it cannot be acceded to. Going by the above clippings in the authorities, it transpires that it is not at all difficult task to step int










































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