Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2009 (11) TMI 1021 - HC - Indian LawsNegotiable Instrument Act - offence punishable u/s 138 - Whether the Courts below have acted legally in declining to refer the cheque to an expert for examination? - Petitioner said cheque in question be referred for an examination by an expert contending that he had issued a blank cheque and a bond paper to the complainant who has written thereon the amount etc. according to his choice and the writings in the cheque and the bond are not in his handwriting - HELD THAT - The reason which has weighed with the Magistrate to dismiss the application is that there is specific admission with regard to the signature on the cheque. The Learned Magistrate did not consider the specific case of the accused that the contents of the cheque and the bond are not in his hand and the same have been entered by misusing the cheque and the bond and it is in that context the prayer was made for sending of the cheque an expert s opinion. The view of the Trial Judge was mechanically upheld by the Revision Court without noticing the case of the revision petitioner. Since the Courts below have failed to consider the case of the accused to the aforesaid effect they have acted with material irregularity which has resulted in illegal orders being passed requiring interference. No doubt the suggestion has been denied by P.W.2. P.W.3 is an attestor to Ex.P-7 the promissory note. P.W.3 has admitted that there is difference in the ink with reference to the contents of the document and the name appearing as Hadimani and that they are in different pen. Keeping in view the line of cross-examination of PW s by an interim order the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 3, 50, 000/-. The petitioner has deposited a said sum in this Court. The Registry is hereby directed to invest the said amount in any Nationalised Bank for a period of six months. In case the respondent succeeds the invested amount along with accrued interest shall be paid to the complainant. If the complaint were to be dismissed the invested amount along with interest earned thereon be refunded to accused. Keeping in view the prima facie facts and record it has to be held that both the Trial Court and Revision Court by dismissing the application have acted illegally. When the case of the accused is that his cheque has been mis-used though the presumption u/s 118(a) and 139 of the Act can be raised still an opportunity must be granted to the accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal thereof. Denying of the opportunity is illegal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in my opinion it is necessary to have an expert opinion on the following question - Whether the writings appearing in the cheque Ex.P-1 and the promissory note Ex.P-7 have been written on the same day and time when the cheque and the promissory note was signed as I.M. Hadimani or in other words whether the age of the writing in Ex.P-1 and 7 is the same as that of the signature I.M. Hadimani appearing on Ex.P-1 and P4? Petition is allowed.
|