Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 461 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Mrs. Kalyani Baskar vs Mrs. M. S. Sampoornam on 11 December, 2006

Alagammai vs Sockalingam on 3 December, 2010

In Kalyani Baskar's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the Magistrate, who is empowered to pass the order has normally allow the petition, seeking opinion, unless he thinks that the object of the appellant is vexation or delaying the criminal proceedings. If the object of the accused is apparent that he / she is adopting delay tactics, without any justifiable reason, the learned Magistrate can reject the request for sending the document for expert opinion.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document

Prema vs D.Ramaswamy on 23 December, 2010

In Kalyani Baskar's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the Magistrate, empowered to consider the plea for sending the cheque for the opinion of any hand writing expert has to order for expert opinion, unless he thinks that the object of the appellant is vexation or delaying the criminal proceeding. If the object of the accused is apparent that he is adopting delay tactics, without any justifiable reason, the Magistrate has to reject the request for sending the document for expert opinion. It is the judicial discretion of the Magistrate, who has to decide the issue based on the admitted facts and circumstances. If there is no delay tactics and the request is bonafide, it is the duty of the the Magistrate to send the document for expert opinion. If there is apparent delay tactics, adopted by the petitioner / accused, in order to cause delay and to protract the criminal proceeding, it has to be construed an abuse of process of the Court and accordingly, the request has to be rejected by the Magistrate, as ruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various decisions.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document

M/S.Decon Construction vs J.A.Stephen on 3 December, 2010

24. On the aforesaid circumstances, seeking an order to send the cheque once again to find out the age of the ink has no relevance to decide the case, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kalyani Baskar's case. It has to be viewed that the court below has held that the object of the revision petitioner is to vexation and delaying the criminal proceedings. The defence raised that the Managing partner of the petitioners' firm had issued a blank signed cheque with the seal of the firm cannot be justified as true, as it would not be an act of a reasonable prudent man and that too by a Managing partner of a firm.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document

Retnabai vs Belarmine Joseph on 8 February, 2013

"9. The learned trial Judge as also the High Court rejected the contention of the appellant only having regard to the provisions of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The very fact that by reason thereof, only a prima facie right had been conferred upon the holder of the negotiable instrument and the same being subject to the conditions as noticed hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the application filed by the appellant was bona fide. The issue now almost stands concluded by a decision of this Court in Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam1 (in which one of us, L.S. Panta, J., was a member) wherein it was held: "12. Section 243(2) is clear that a Magistrate holding an inquiry under CrPC in respect of an offence triable by him does not exceed his powers under Section 243(2) if, in the interest of justice, he directs to send the document for enabling the same to be compared by a handwriting 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 handwriting 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. 'Fair trial' includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove her innocence. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. 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 the courts should be jealous in seeing that there is no breach of them."
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - M Venugopal - Full Document

Shri Prakash Sevantilal Vora vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 January, 2011

9. Applications are also made for sending the document to handwriting expert. Section 45 of the Evidence Act lays down that the opinion of expert in certain circumstances is relevant. The opinion of the handwriting expert can be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating circumstantial evidence. Taking into consideration the aforesaid provision under the Cr.P.C., it will have to be seen whether the ratio of the judgments on which reliance is placed by either side is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:45:28 ::: 9 APPLN 2987/2010 applicable to the facts of the present case. The Apex Court has considered this aspect in three recent judgments viz. in G. Someshwar Rao vs. Samineni Nagehswar Rao & Anr.1, T. Nagappa vs. Y.R. Muralidhar 2 and in Kalyani Baskar vs. Mrs. M.S. Sampoornam 3 In the case of Kalyani Baskar (supra), the accused had denied the signature on the cheque and an application was made by him for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert, which was rejected and, under these circumstances, the Apex Court held that the accused cannot be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her evidence. After referring to provisions of section 243 of the Cr.P.C., the Apex Court observed, in the facts of the said case, that at the initial stage itself the accused had filed an application before the Magistrate under section 245 of the Cr.P.C. and had denied her signature on the cheque and its delivery to the respondent besides raising other preliminary objections in opposition to the complaint filed by the respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and had requested for sending the cheque in question for the opinion of the handwriting expert after the respondent had closed her evidence and, it was, therefore observed that the Magistrate should have granted such request, unless the Magistrate had come to the conclusion that the appellant was protracting the trial. Ratio of this 1 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2815 (S.C.) 2 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1945 (S.C.) 3 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 820 (S.C.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:45:28 ::: 10 APPLN 2987/2010 judgment will not apply to the facts of the present case since, in the present case, the applicant/accused has not disputed his signature on the said cheque but he is disputing the handwriting in filling up the other particulars of the said cheque.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - V M Kanade - Full Document

Shashikant Shamaldas Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 24 June, 2022

11. The decision rendered in Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam (supra) was followed in the case of T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar (supra). In the present case, in his complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant has stated that the accused had given him the disputed cheque with his signature on it and had informed him that if the cheque is deposited on the date so mentioned, he would receive the amount mentioned in the cheque. As per the complainant, after depositing the said cheque on 15.11.2018, the same got returned owing to the account being closed. Thus, after legal notice, the complaint was filed. The facts in Page 9 of 11 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 27 22:09:35 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/11178/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2022 the complaint suggest that the signed cheque was handed over but the facts in the complaint also suggests that he was informed that the complainant would receive the amount so mentioned in the cheque. While it is the case of the complainant that it was a cheque that was signed "in blank"
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document

Krishna Devi Shukla vs K S Oil Limited on 23 May, 2022

9. The petitioner cannot be convicted without an opportunity of being given a fair chance to present his evidence and if it is denied then there would be no "fair trial". After-all "fair trial" includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove the parties innocence. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. This was precisely what was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam (2007) 2 SCC 258 which reads thus:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - J S Bedi - Full Document

Rajesh Rana vs Parmod Kumar on 13 June, 2022

9. The petitioner cannot be convicted without an opportunity of being given a fair chance to present his evidence and if it is denied then there would be no "fair trial". After-all "fair trial" includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove the parties innocence. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. This was precisely what was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam (2007) 2 SCC 258 which reads thus:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - J S Bedi - Full Document

C.Shanmugam vs State Represented By on 5 March, 2019

11.In kalyani Baskar Vs. M.S.Sampooranm reported in (2007) 2 SCC 258, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that “12. ........................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. “Fair trial” includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove her innocence. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. 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 the courts should be zealous in seeing that there is no breach of them.”
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A D Chandira - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next