9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE ORDER The present petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1301/2017 pending before the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court', for brevity) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act', for short). 2. During the pendency of the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and the impugned order. 6. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, when it is the specific defence of the accused in the trial Court that the cheque in question though was bearing the signature of the accused, but the same was issued not to the complainant, but to one M/s. Mahaveera Traders at Kampli as a security in a cloth purchase transaction. However, the present com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 20 of the N.I. Act. In support of his contention, he relies upon the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 04.11.2019 passed in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Prabodh Kumar Tewari & Anr. SLA (Crl.) No.9836/2019 (unreported). In the said order, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to its previous judgment in Bir Singh V. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the cheque was duly signed by him, the High Court had erred in allowing the application for examination of a private handwriting expert. 8. In the instant case also, the defence of the accused is that, the cheque was signed and issued by him, however, to a different establishment called M/s.Mahaveer Traders, but not to the present complainant. Section 20 of the N.I. Act makes it amply clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
