Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 1 of 1 (0.19 seconds)

Neeraj Kumar Sinha vs . P. Srikanth on 20 January, 2020

22. With respect to the defence of the accused that the signature on the cheque in question were forged, section 73 of the Evidence Act clothes a CC No. 468131/16 Neeraj Kumar Sinha V. P. Srinakth 17 / 25 20th January, 2020 Court with the requisite powers for referring to and comparing the admitted signatures. The accused admits his signature at Ex CW1/A, Ex DW1/A to DW1/C and also in DW2/A colly. It is of course true that when there is a serious dispute, Courts should not arrogate to themselves the power to decide and determine the genuineness of signatures, handwritings and thump impressions without expert opinion by its own naked eye comparison. The Court may be referred to as the expert of experts, but no finding of a Court should ordinarily rest solely on the comparison made by the Court under Section 73 of the Evidence Act in the absence of evidence of any expert. That is however,not the situation in the facts of the instant case. The reason for return in the present case on which the complaint was filed was "funds insufficient". Section 146 of NI act states that the Bank's slip is a prima facie evidence of the reason for dishonor, until and unless disproved. Though, the accused in the present case had moved an application for examination of his signature's by an expert, which was dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, yet the accused nowhere explained as to why he did not contact his bank when the cheque was presented for the first time and why he chose not to stop the payment, when according to him he had already made the payments, even though the cheque in question was presented for the second time three months after it was presented for the first time. The accused himself admits in his cross examination that he gave Ex CW2/2 dated 05.04.2012 to the witness CW­2, which were not presented in the bank at his instruction. In Ex CW2/2 colly, it is stated by the accused that he has lost his cheques bearing no. 031766 to 031770, which included the cheque in question.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1