Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.39 seconds)Section 45 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Murari Lal S/O Ram Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 November, 1979
In these cases as well as in the cases of Murari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh (supra) the provision of Section 73 of the Evidence Act was considered elaborately. In view of aforesaid, the cases are divided in two sets; one in which an expert opinion has been sought by the Court at the instance of both the parties or one party, the Court has to draw its own opinion thereafter and in another set of cases, no expert opinion was sought by the party, the Court can record its own opinion after comparing two writings/signature. In all cases, ultimate conclusion has to be drawn by the Court after taking note of the corroborative evidence with that of the opinion of the handwriting expert. Thus, in the cases where handwriting expert's opinion is sought, it may not be accepted without corroborative piece of evidence. Looking to the aforesaid, as and when application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act and 243(2) of the Act is filed by the accused, the trial Court is under an obligation to decide the application taking note of the aforesaid legal position. Since discretion vests in the trial Court, it should be exercised judiciously. The endeavour of the Court should be to give fair opportunity of trial to the accused but if the application is not bonafide and is to delay the proceedings, the Court is having ample power to reject the same.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra Etc. Etc vs Sukhdeo Singh And Anr. Etc. Etc on 15 July, 1992
In these cases as well as in the cases of Murari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh (supra) the provision of Section 73 of the Evidence Act was considered elaborately. In view of aforesaid, the cases are divided in two sets; one in which an expert opinion has been sought by the Court at the instance of both the parties or one party, the Court has to draw its own opinion thereafter and in another set of cases, no expert opinion was sought by the party, the Court can record its own opinion after comparing two writings/signature. In all cases, ultimate conclusion has to be drawn by the Court after taking note of the corroborative evidence with that of the opinion of the handwriting expert. Thus, in the cases where handwriting expert's opinion is sought, it may not be accepted without corroborative piece of evidence. Looking to the aforesaid, as and when application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act and 243(2) of the Act is filed by the accused, the trial Court is under an obligation to decide the application taking note of the aforesaid legal position. Since discretion vests in the trial Court, it should be exercised judiciously. The endeavour of the Court should be to give fair opportunity of trial to the accused but if the application is not bonafide and is to delay the proceedings, the Court is having ample power to reject the same.