Satyendra Upadhyaya vs Omprakash Rathore @ Japan Singh

Q: Key Points

Arguments stated by appellant: The petitioner admitted his signature on the cheque but contended that it was a blank signed cheque that was lost, as reported to the bank on 24.5.2007, and stolen by the respondent, who was a friend, and subsequently misused by the respondent by filling in his own name as payee and the date.[27000093420002][27000093420003] He highlighted visible differences in the ink used for the signature versus the payee's name and date, necessitating examination by a handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to verify authenticity of those parts. (!) [27000093420001][27000093420002][27000093420003] The lower courts erred in dismissing the application without allowing this expert opinion, as the presumption under Section 20 of the NI Act should not preclude investigation into the disputed fillings despite the admitted signature.[27000093420007]

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(MP) 714

INDRANI DATTA
Satyendra Upadhyaya – Appellant
Versus
Omprakash Rathore @ Japan Singh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Vinod Bhargava for petitioner;
Y.S. Tomar for respondent.

Judgement Key Points

Arguments stated by appellant: The petitioner admitted his signature on the cheque but contended that it was a blank signed cheque that was lost, as reported to the bank on 24.5.2007, and stolen by the respondent, who was a friend, and subsequently misused by the respondent by filling in his own name as payee and the date.[27000093420002][27000093420003] He highlighted visible differences in the ink used for the signature versus the payee's name and date, necessitating examination by a handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to verify authenticity of those parts. (!) [27000093420001][27000093420002][27000093420003] The lower courts erred in dismissing the application without allowing this expert opinion, as the presumption under Section 20 of the NI Act should not preclude investigation into the disputed fillings despite the admitted signature.[27000093420007]

ORDER

1. With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard.

2. Petitioner has filed this petition under section 482, CrPC for setting aside the order dated 20.7.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 182/2010; whereby, order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 11892/07 dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending disputed cheque for examination by handwriting expert, is affirmed.

3. Facts in narrow compass are that the petitioner is facing criminal trial in Court of JMFC, Gwalior on a complaint filed by the respondent under Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity "N.I.Act"). In that case the petitioner filed one application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act praying that disputed Cheque No. 010102 is alleged to be signed by the complainant and the petitioner has already made a complaint to concerning Bank on 24.5.2007 that the disputed cheque No. 010102, dated 13.7.2007 alongwith two other Cheque Nos. 010109 and 010110 which are all signed by the petitioner have been lost. Hence to prevent its misuse, prayed for stopping the payment of afor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(MP) 714

INDRANI DATTASatyendra Upadhyaya – AppellantVersusOmprakash Rathore @ Japan Singh – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

INDRANI DATTA
Satyendra Upadhyaya – Appellant
Versus
Omprakash Rathore @ Japan Singh – Respondent