Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.33 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
State (Delhi Administration) vs Pali Ram on 26 September, 1978
In the last mentioned case State v. Pali Ram, the Supreme Court explained a law in this regard as under:
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 73 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Mrs. Kalyani Baskar vs Mrs. M. S. Sampoornam on 11 December, 2006
16.3 It is clear that in the above case the request for sending the cheques in question to the handwriting expert only made once by the accused and not as in this case on two occasions. Further in Kalyani Baskar, the decision of the learned MM rejecting the request was carried in revision to the High Court and thereafter to the Supreme Court. However, in the present case, the order dated 8th March 2006 was not challenged by the accused further after the dismissal of the revision petition. There is nothing in Kalyani Baskar which indicates that despite a Magistrate by a judicial order having rejected the request for referring the cheques in question to a handwriting expert, it can thereafter suo motu refer those very cheques to a handwriting expert. Indeed, if such a proposition were to be accepted, it would virtually amount to permitting the learned MM to either review his own order or the order of the predecessor. That is clearly impermissible in the scheme of the CrPC.
Ajit Savant Majagavi vs State Of Karnataka on 14 August, 1997
15. This was later reiterated by the Supreme Court in the judgment in Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka. The law that the trial court is free to exercise its powers for the ends of justice and refer a document for the opinion of an expert is fairly well settled. However, as far as the present case is concerned the question is whether after the learned MM has by a detailed order dated 8th March, 2006 rejected such a request, and the order has become final, he can at a subsequent stage suo motu refer the cheques in question for the opinion of the CFSL. The learned Counsel for the respondent was unable to point out any provision under the CrPC which permits that. Nor do any of the judgments referred to hereinabove contemplate such a situation.
Lillykutty vs Lawrance on 29 August, 2003
20. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Lillykutty v. Lawrance 2003 (2) DCR 610 relying on earlier judgment of the Division Bench in Gangadhar explained the law thus: