Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2006 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (12) TMI 545 - SC - Indian LawsApplication u/s 243 of CrPC - Permission to lead further defence evidence and forward the cheque in dispute to the Hand Writing Expert for opinion - Trial Magistrate as well as the High Court have observed that Section 243 CrPC deals with summoning of defence witnesses and cause any document or thing to be produced through him - But in the present case, the accused has filed a petition without naming any person as witness or anything to be summoned which is to be sent for hand-writing expert for examination. HELD THAT:- Section 243(2) is clear that a Magistrate holding an inquiry under the CrPC in respect of an offence triable by him does not exceed his powers u/s 243(2) if, in the interest of justice, he directs to send the document for enabling the same to be compared by a hand-writing expert because even in adopting this course, the purpose is to enable the Magistrate to compare the disputed signature or writing with the admitted writing or signature of the accused and to reach his own conclusion with the assistance of the expert. The appellant is entitled to rebut the case of the respondent and if the document viz. the cheque on which the respondent has relied upon for initiating criminal proceedings against the appellant would furnish good material for rebutting that case, the Magistrate having declined to send the document for the examination and opinion of the hand-writing expert has deprived the appellant of an opportunity of rebutting it. The appellant cannot be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her evidence and if it is denied to her, there is no fair trial. Denial of that right means denial of fair trial. It is essential that rules of procedure designed to ensure justice should be scrupulously followed, and courts should be jealous in seeing that there is no breach of them. Hence, the order of the High Court impugned in this appeal upholding the order of the Magistrate is erroneous and not sustainable. Thus, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court passed in Criminal Revision Case by which the order of the Judicial Magistrate made in Crl. M. P. dismissing the application of the appellant u/s 243 CrPC was affirmed. Accordingly, Crl. M.P. on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, shall stand allowed. The learned Magistrate shall take appropriate steps for obtaining the report of handwriting expert on the point whether the signature in the cheque is that of the accused and shall proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law. Since the case is very old, further proceedings shall be taken with utmost expedition.
|