Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Rajesh Rana – Appellant
Versus
Parmod Kumar – Respondent
CRM-M-45064 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 13-06-2022
Negotiable Instruments Act - Examination of Cheque by Handwriting Expert - Sections 138/141/142 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner issued a cheque to the respondent, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The petitioner claimed that the cheque was given as security to a commission agent and was misused by the respondent. The petitioner sought to examine a handwriting expert to compare the handwriting on the cheque.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petitioner to examine the handwriting expert as a defense witness and directed the trial to conclude within eight weeks.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be allowed to examine the cheque by a handwriting expert to establish misuse of the cheque.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused should be granted an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal if a contention is raised that the complainant misused the cheque. The court emphasized the importance of fair trial and the accused's right to defend himself.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and allowed the petitioner to examine the handwriting expert as a defense witness.
JUDGMENT
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - CRM-11460-2022
1. The applicant-petitioner has filed this application for placing on record a short affidavit along with annexures.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and short affidavit along with annexures are taken on record.
CRM-M-45064-2019
1. The prayer in this petition is for quashing of the order dated 24.07.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karnal in Criminal Complaint No.425 dated 10.10.2014/20.02.2016 under Sections 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act titled as Parmod Kumar Versus Welkin Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others, whereby an application filed by the petitioner/accused to examine the fingerprint and handwriting expert has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant filed the above mentioned complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against Welkin Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Rajesh Rana and Narinder Kumar on the allegation that Rajesh Rana and Narinder Kumar were the Directors of Welkin Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs.15 lakhs in favour of the respondent dated 31.08.2013, which was dishonoured on account of 'Insufficient Funds'.
3. The respondent/complainant was examined as CW1. In cross- examination a suggestion was put to him that in fact a blank cheque was given by the petitioner to one Subhash Chand, who was a commission agent in Grain Market, Nighdu as a security to supply paddy as the company is running a rice mill but that cheque was misused by the complainant in connivance with Subhash Chand and the petitioner/accused had never met with the respondent/complainant and he had no liability towards the respondent. It was also alleged that the cheque was not filled up by Rajesh Rana (accused petitioner) though it had been signed by him.
4. The complainant's evidence was closed on 10.07.2019 and the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on the same day and the petitioner filed an application for calling the fingerprint and handwriting expert for comparing the handwriting in question on the same day.
5. Meanwhile, in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner took the stand that the petitioner did not issue the cheque to the complainant rather the blank signed cheque was given to one Subhash Chand, Commission Agent as security but that was misused by the complainant in connivance with Subhash Chand.
6. The said application for calling and examining the fingerprint and handwriting expert came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 24.07.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karnal.
7. The counsel for the petitioner/accused contends that the impugned order dated 24.07.2019 had been passed without considering the mandatory provisions prescribed under Sections 243 Cr.P.C. and 247 Cr.P.C. The application for leading defence evidence could be rejected only if it was made for the purpose of vexation, delay or for defeating the ends of justice. No such finding has been recorded by the learned Trial Court. The said application had been dismissed only on the ground that since the accused had admitted that he had signed the cheque, the deposition of the expert witness was not required to compare the writing on the body of the cheque in question with handwriting of the signatory. He also referred to an order of this Court in another complaint filed against the petitioner, where a similar prayer had been disallowed but this Court vide order Annexure P-5 had quashed the order of the Trial Court.
8. The counsel for the respondent/complainant on the other hand filed an affidavit. The thrust of the said affidavit was that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been pending for the last about eight years and the petitioner was making all attempts to stall the same in one way or the other. He had initially approached the Company Court an
AI
The accused should be granted an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal if a contention is raised that the complainant misused the cheque.
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.
Once the signatures are admitted, the filling of the body of the cheque by another person is immaterial, and no useful purpose would be served by comparing the handwriting. The accused has a valuable....
An accused has the right to present evidence to challenge the validity of a cheque, particularly when allegations of misuse are made.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of liability of the drawer of the cheques under Section 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the obligation on the ac....
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
