Back
HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Anuj Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Pardeep Kumar Rana – Respondent
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.
1. Prayer in the petition is for quashing of the order dated 26.05.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Yamuna Nagar, vide which the application dated 18.05.2016 (Annexure P-4) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 311-A Cr.P.C. for permission to examine a Handwriting Expert for comparison of specimen signatures of the accused with that on the cheque in question, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short `the Act’) before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhari. In the said compliant, the respondent was summoned. As per facts on record, the respondents denied his signatures on the cheque in question from the very beginning. Accordingly, in defence evidence, the respondent examined handwriting expert, to compare the signatures on the cheque with the signatures on power of attorney, bail bonds and copy of specimen signatures produced by ICICI Bank official.
3. Petitioner moved an application seeking appointment of a handwriting expert for comparing the signatures of the respondent on the cheque with his speci
The report of handwriting experts is not binding upon the courts, and if the complainant did not lead evidence to seek examination of a handwriting expert when the accused had denied his signatures o....
The defense of the accused regarding the misuse of the cheque and the absence of liability are matters of evidence to be proved by the accused.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the accused's right to a fair trial, entitlement to lead evidence to prove innocence, and the provisions of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal ....
Accused must be allowed to present expert evidence when claiming misuse of a cheque to ensure a fair trial.
Once the signatures on a cheque are admitted, the handwriting on the cheque itself would not be a sufficient ground to rule against the cheque having been issued in due course.
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 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....
The accused should be granted an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal if a contention is raised that the complainant misused the cheque.
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
