Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.31 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shri Prakash Sevantilal Vora vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 January, 2011
20. As regards the judicial pronouncement relied upon by
the learned Counsel for respondent no.1, in the case of Prakash
Sevantilal Vora Vs. The State of Maharashtra & another, it is
apparent that the said case pertains to the application preferred by
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:19 :::
(17)
the accused for sending the disputed cheque to the handwriting
expert in respect of alleged alteration thereon and it was observed
that it was not necessary to send the cheque to handwriting expert
for that purpose and accordingly, the said application came to be
dismissed, finding that it was preferred to protract the trial. But
so is not the position in the instant case, and in the present case,
accused has preferred the application to send the documents at
Exhibits 29/1 and 29/2 i.e. diary and chit along with admitted
handwriting of the complainant, to the handwriting expert for
comparison and for obtaining his opinion, and there is no prayer
of the accused to send any cheque to the handwriting expert for
obtaining his opinion in respect of alterations therein, and hence,
the observations made in the case, cited supra, and the ratio laid
down therein will not be applicable in the instant case, and same
will not be of any aid and assistance to the complainant herein.
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 143 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
S.Gopal vs D.Balachandran on 22 January, 2008
21. As regards the ruling cited by the learned Counsel for
respondent no.1, in the case of S. Gopal Vs. D. Balachandran
(supra), wherein also, it is observed that there is no necessity to
send disputed cheque for expert's opinion to determine the age of
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:19 :::
(18)
ink of the signature, since signature found therein had been
categorically admitted by the petitioner, but again, so is not the
position in the instant case, and in the present case, there is no
prayer of the accused to send the cheque to handwriting expert
for examination purpose, but the prayer of the accused is to send
documents at Exhibits 29/1 and 29/2 and admitted handwriting of
the complainant for comparison purpose and for obtaining
opinion of the handwriting expert, and hence, the said ruling also
cannot be of any help to the case of respondent no.1.
T. Nagappa vs Y.R. Muralidhar on 24 April, 2008
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
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:19 :::
(15)
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-