Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 128 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad vs Ravi Surya Prakash Babu And Others on 18 December, 2015

Mr. Ramesh Kumar vs Smt. Rajni Kaur on 12 December, 2017

8. Since in the case in hand, the respondent/complainant had filed the complaint u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the basis of the cheque of Rs.1 Lakh alleged to have been issued by the petitioner/accused and during pendency of the complaint in the Ld. Trial Court the petitioner/accused had sought to send the cheque to the FSL, as he has disputed the handwriting thereon by way of filing an application in the Ld. Trial Court. But the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the said application vide order dated 27.04.2011 and on preferring of revision against the said order, the said revision was allowed by the court of Sh. Rajnish Bhatnagar, the-then Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 24.09.2011 and accordingly the cheque was sent to the FSL, but, the FSL had written in its report dated 26.04.2012 that it is not possible to express any opinion qua the writing on the said cheque and thereafter petitioner/accused had filed another similar application in the Ld. Trial Court, but, the Ld. Trial Court without serving any notice of the said application to the respondent/complainant, was pleased to dismiss the said application and this petitioner/accused had preferred a revision against the said order passed by the Ld. Trial Court on 04.08.2014 and the Ld. Appellate Court of Sh. Praveen Kumar, Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Rohini, was pleased to dismiss the said revision vide order dated 02.09.2014. Thereafter, on dated 04.11.2016, the petitioner/accused had filed another application u/s.45 of the Indian Evidence Act and sought to send the cheque with the admitted writing to the FSL, but, the Ld. Trial Court vide its (CR No.126/17, Ramesh Kumar vs. Rajni Kaur) Page 4 of 6 impugned order under Revision dated 27.05.2017, was pleased to dismiss the said application filed by petitioner/accused. Since, similar application was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court on dated 04.08.2014 and revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the court of Sh. Praveen Kumar, Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Rohini, vide order dated 02.09.2014 and the petitioner did not choose to challenge the said order dated 02.09.2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, and thus, the said order had achieved finality. Thereafter, on dated 04.11.2016, the petitioner/accused had filed another application u/s.45 of the Indian Evidence Act and sought to send the cheque with the admitted writing to the FSL, but, the Ld. Trial Court vide its impugned order under Revision dated 27.05.2017, was pleased to dismiss the said application. The Ld. Counsel for petitioner/accused has relied upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in case Bande Siva Shankara Sriniwasa Prasad vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu, III (2016) CLT (FB) 212 and another judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case Sri Ishwar vs. Suresh, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 345. This court has gone through these judgments but in view of dissimilarities of facts and circumstances, the said judgments are of no help for the petitioner/accused. It appears to the court that the petitioner/accused has filed the said application u/s.45 of the Indian Evidence Act to cause unnecessarily delay in the proceedings in the Ld. Trial Court. Since similar application of the petitioner/accused was earlier dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court without serving any notice on the respondent/complainant and the Ld. Appellate Court had already dismissed the revision petition filed by this petitioner/accused and since the petitioner/accused did not choose to challenge the said order before the Hon'ble High Court, as discussed above, so the said order had achieved finality and since the respondent/complainant had filed the complaint in the Ld. Trial Court way back in the year 2006 and since 2011 the said complaint is running at the stage of final argument in the Ld. Trial Court and, therefore, it appears to (CR No.126/17, Ramesh Kumar vs. Rajni Kaur) Page 5 of 6 the court that the petitioner had filed the said application with the sinister motive to delay the proceedings in the Ld. Trial Court.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.C.Thenmozhi vs M.Parameswari on 16 June, 2016

?16. For the reasons aforementioned, we answer the reference thus : ?No time could be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion and same shall be left open to the discretion of the Court; for exercising such discretion when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case.? The same was confirmed by the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2016(2) MWN (Civil) 1 (Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and others).
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - K Kalyanasundaram - Full Document

Anyam Sundara Rama Rao, vs Challa Prabhakara Rao, on 15 June, 2018

As seen from the Order passed by the Court below, the reason for dismissal of the petition is that the signatures on Exs.P.1 and P.2 were not denied by the petitioners and that there was abnormal delay. The delay itself is not a ground to dismiss the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act in view of the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court in "Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash" (referred supra), whereby the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in "Janachaitanya Housing Limited v. Divya2" was upheld.
Telangana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr.Namineni Audi Seshaiah vs Mr.Numburu Mohan Rao on 25 September, 2018

Further the Full Bench expression of this Court in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad Vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu (died) per L.Rs. and Others21 by referring to earlier Division Bench expression in Janachaitanya Housing Limited Vs. Divya Financiers22, observed that non- availability of contemporary relevancy and even from long gap between the admitted and disputed signatures not a ground 19 2016 3 ALT (Crl) 307 at paras 27 to 30 20 2007 1 SCC (Crl) 577 21 2016 2 ALT 248 22 2008 3 ALT 409 13 Dr. SSRB,J CRP.No.4656 of 2018 to refuse nor as to any said Rules as to at which stage the application to be filed for each case to be determined on own facts it is thereby ultimately concluded in allowing the revision to entertain the application of accused by the learned Magistrate to send to determine the age of the ink.
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next