Back
DEEPAK GUPTA
PG Micro System Private Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Softech Computers – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Deepak Gupta, J.)
By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner prays to quash the order dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure P14) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram in complaint case No.NACT/6528 dated 25.05.2016, whereby the application moved by the petitioner, to adjourn the matter sine die or to dismiss the complaint, was dismissed. Under challenge is also the order dated 18.10.2023 (Annexure P15) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, whereby revision preferred against order dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure P14), was dismissed.
2. As it emerges, respondent-Softech Computers, filed a complaint before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram seeking prosecution of the accused M/s.PG Micro System Private Ltd. (present petitioner) under Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the NI Act') regarding dishonour of a cheque for an amount of Rs.28,00,092/-. Accused pleaded not guilty. Trial commenced.
3. It was claimed by the petitioner-accused that cheque in question had not been issued by him for discharging any liability and that the said cheque was neither signed by him nor was in his handwriting. This
Loss of original cheque does not invalidate a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act; reconstructed documents can suffice for trial.
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 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....
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 ....
The court emphasized the importance of independent expert testimony for establishing signature authenticity in forgery claims.
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.
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
