Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.65 seconds)
Smt. Neelam Devi vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 22 May, 2015 cites

T. Nagappa vs Y.R. Muralidhar on 24 April, 2008

moved an application for sending the said documents to the handwriting expert for his opinion. The Ld. Trial Court rejected the said application. Revision petition against the said order was dismissed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge. In a challenge to the said order, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held, " 18. Moreover, as observed by the Hon. Apex Court, in the case of T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Muralidhar (supra), what should be the nature of the evidence of the petitioner / accused should be left open to him, and accused knows how to prove his defence and ordinarily accused should be allowed to approach the Court for obtaining its assistance with regard to summoning of witnesses etc. In the instant case, since the accused preferred application Exhibit 48, requesting to send the documents at Exhibits 29/1 and 29/2, bearing disputed handwriting of the complainant, along with the admitted handwriting of the complainant, for obtaining handwriting expert's opinion, in fact, which should have been allowed by the learned trial court or, at least, by the learned Sessions Court, in the revision, to meet the ends of justice. However, simultaneously, there is no doubt that the accused should not be permitted to protract the trial unnecessarily. Hence, the apprehension posed by the respondent no.1, in respect of protracting the trial by the accused, can be met with by giving specific directions to the handwriting expert to submit the expert's opinion within stipulated period and thereby, endeavor can be made to achieve the spirit of Section 143, Sub- Sections 2 and 3, of the Negotiable Instruments Act." (emphasis supplied) The Hon'ble High Court further held, " 23. In the result, present Petition is allowed, and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No.6, Latur, below Exhibit 48, in S.T.C. No. 1734/2009, dated 11th June 2010, and also the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, in Criminal Revision No. 114/2010, dated 7th January 2011, stand quashed and set aside, and the application Exhibit 48, dated 13-4-2010, preferred by the petitioner / accused, in S.T.C. No. 1734/2009, stands allowed to the extent of prayer clause 1 thereof, and it is directed that the document No.1 below Exhibit 29 i.e. "chit of transaction", and document No.2 below Exhibit 29 i.e. "diary of the Crl.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 569 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next