Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)
M/S Super Cassettes Industries Ltd vs Sri.G M Hulbanni Prop: M/S Adarsh ... on 25 August, 2012
cites
Section 73 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
State (Delhi Administration) vs Pali Ram on 26 September, 1978
In the case of State (Delhi Administration) Vs.
Pali Ram reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 14, the
Apex Court has observed thus in para 29,
"29. The matter can be viewed from
another angle, also. Although there is no
legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to
compare the disputed writing with the
admitted writing, even without the aid of the
evidence of any handwriting expert, the
Judge should, as a matter of prudence and
14
caution, hesitate to base his finding with
regard to the identity of a handwriting which
forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution
case against a person accused of an offence,
solely on comparison made by himself. It is
therefore, not advisable that a Judge should
take upon himself the task of comparing the
admitted writing with the disputed one to
find out whether the two agree with each
other; and the prudent course is to obtain
the opinion and assistance of an expert."
State Of Maharashtra Etc. Etc vs Sukhdeo Singh And Anr. Etc. Etc on 15 July, 1992
In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.
Sukhdeo Singh and another reported in 1992
Section 142 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
1