Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 1261 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - legally enforceable debt or not - rejection of petitioner's application for sending certain documents tendered by him in evidence, to the handwriting expert for examination and his opinion - section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- Here was a case where the accused had come with a specific plea that he had already paid the amounts due and payable by him to the complainant, and as such, the cheque could not have been said to have been issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt, or other liability. He had categorically stated that the complainant had acknowledged the receipt of the said amounts. It is shocking that in spite of this categorical stand taken by the accused, neither the Magistrate, nor the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, felt the necessity of giving an opportunity to the accused to adduce evidence in support of his contention. It goes without saying that the accused is entitled to have an opportunity to adduce evidence in defence. In fact, if the accused is denied an opportunity to adduce evidence, the trial would be vitiated - The approach of the Magistrate and also that of the Addl. Sessions Judge was totally erroneous and contrary to the well settled principles of law. Denying the accused an opportunity to establish the stand taken by him, would be totally unfair and unjust - It was a simple case where the accused wanted to adduce defence evidence. It was nobody's case that the evidence intended to be adduced, was irrelevant or inadmissible. When that was so, it was not open for the Magistrate to say that it was not necessary for the accused to adduce that evidence. The impugned orders are patently illegal and contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. The principle that defence evidence (which is not irrelevant or inadmissible) can be prevented from being adduced only if the Court considers that the prayer to adduce such evidence, is made for the purpose of vexation, or delay, or for defeating the ends of justice, has been recognized by the Code of Criminal Procedure - Petition allowed.
|