Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (2.76 seconds)Section 245 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Bindu vs Sreekantan Nair on 13 December, 2006
I have heard the respective submissions of the Learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. It is pertinent
to note here that neither the complainant nor any of his witnesses have
been examined and cross-examined so far. The provisions, i.e. S.243
and S.245 Cr.P.C., under which the present application has been filed
pertains to the stage when the accused has been called upon to lead the
evidence or when the entire evidence from the
prosecution/complainant's side has been led. Ld. Counsel for the
accused places reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Kerela High
Court in Bindu VS. Sreekantan Nair, 2007 (3) JCC (NI) 264 wherein
the application of the petitioner/accused which was moved at the
stage of defence evidence for sending the cheque for expert opinion
was allowed for the reason that the accused had taken a consistent
stand that except the signature, other entries were not made by her and
Page 5 of 5
that the complainant had misutilized the blank signed cheque by
making other entries as it pleased him.
Sheelawanti And Anr., ... vs Delhi Development Authority And Anr. on 3 February, 1995
Ld. counsel for the
complainant, on the other hand, places reliance upon the judgement of
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
Ravi Chopra Vs. State & Anr. 2008 ( 2) LRC 118 (Del.), whereby
the order of Ld. MM dismissing the petitioner's application for
sending the
cheque in question to CFSL for opinion of handwritting expert, was
uphled as correct. It was held that " where the accused facing the trial
for the offence u/s 138 NI Act is disputing the signature on the cheque
itself, then this is a permissible defence within the scope of S. 138 NI
Act. In fact, an accused facing trial for this offence has a very limited
range of defences to adopt. One is to show that the signature on the
cheque is not that of the accused. The other is to show that there is no
outstanding towards payment of debt. While the former can be proved
through the evidence of an handwritting expert, the latter cannot
possibly be proved in that manner".
Section 243 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1