Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.18 seconds)
Shri Prakash Sevantilal Vora vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 January, 2011 cites

Mrs. Kalyani Baskar vs Mrs. M. S. Sampoornam on 11 December, 2006

9. Applications are also made for sending the document to handwriting expert. Section 45 of the Evidence Act lays down that the opinion of expert in certain circumstances is relevant. The opinion of the handwriting expert can be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating circumstantial evidence. Taking into consideration the aforesaid provision under the Cr.P.C., it will have to be seen whether the ratio of the judgments on which reliance is placed by either side is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:45:28 ::: 9 APPLN 2987/2010 applicable to the facts of the present case. The Apex Court has considered this aspect in three recent judgments viz. in G. Someshwar Rao vs. Samineni Nagehswar Rao & Anr.1, T. Nagappa vs. Y.R. Muralidhar 2 and in Kalyani Baskar vs. Mrs. M.S. Sampoornam 3 In the case of Kalyani Baskar (supra), the accused had denied the signature on the cheque and an application was made by him for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert, which was rejected and, under these circumstances, the Apex Court held that the accused cannot be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her evidence. After referring to provisions of section 243 of the Cr.P.C., the Apex Court observed, in the facts of the said case, that at the initial stage itself the accused had filed an application before the Magistrate under section 245 of the Cr.P.C. and had denied her signature on the cheque and its delivery to the respondent besides raising other preliminary objections in opposition to the complaint filed by the respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and had requested for sending the cheque in question for the opinion of the handwriting expert after the respondent had closed her evidence and, it was, therefore observed that the Magistrate should have granted such request, unless the Magistrate had come to the conclusion that the appellant was protracting the trial. Ratio of this 1 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2815 (S.C.) 2 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1945 (S.C.) 3 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 820 (S.C.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:45:28 ::: 10 APPLN 2987/2010 judgment will not apply to the facts of the present case since, in the present case, the applicant/accused has not disputed his signature on the said cheque but he is disputing the handwriting in filling up the other particulars of the said cheque.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 364 - L S Panta - Full Document

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

9. Applications are also made for sending the document to handwriting expert. Section 45 of the Evidence Act lays down that the opinion of expert in certain circumstances is relevant. The opinion of the handwriting expert can be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating circumstantial evidence. Taking into consideration the aforesaid provision under the Cr.P.C., it will have to be seen whether the ratio of the judgments on which reliance is placed by either side is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:45:28 ::: 9 APPLN 2987/2010 applicable to the facts of the present case. The Apex Court has considered this aspect in three recent judgments viz. in G. Someshwar Rao vs. Samineni Nagehswar Rao & Anr.1, T. Nagappa vs. Y.R. Muralidhar 2 and in Kalyani Baskar vs. Mrs. M.S. Sampoornam 3 In the case of Kalyani Baskar (supra), the accused had denied the signature on the cheque and an application was made by him for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert, which was rejected and, under these circumstances, the Apex Court held that the accused cannot be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her evidence. After referring to provisions of section 243 of the Cr.P.C., the Apex Court observed, in the facts of the said case, that at the initial stage itself the accused had filed an application before the Magistrate under section 245 of the Cr.P.C. and had denied her signature on the cheque and its delivery to the respondent besides raising other preliminary objections in opposition to the complaint filed by the respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and had requested for sending the cheque in question for the opinion of the handwriting expert after the respondent had closed her evidence and, it was, therefore observed that the Magistrate should have granted such request, unless the Magistrate had come to the conclusion that the appellant was protracting the trial. Ratio of this 1 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2815 (S.C.) 2 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1945 (S.C.) 3 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 820 (S.C.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:45:28 ::: 10 APPLN 2987/2010 judgment will not apply to the facts of the present case since, in the present case, the applicant/accused has not disputed his signature on the said cheque but he is disputing the handwriting in filling up the other particulars of the said cheque.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 569 - S B Sinha - Full Document

G. Someshwar Rao vs Samineni Nageshwar Rao & Anr on 29 July, 2009

9. Applications are also made for sending the document to handwriting expert. Section 45 of the Evidence Act lays down that the opinion of expert in certain circumstances is relevant. The opinion of the handwriting expert can be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating circumstantial evidence. Taking into consideration the aforesaid provision under the Cr.P.C., it will have to be seen whether the ratio of the judgments on which reliance is placed by either side is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:45:28 ::: 9 APPLN 2987/2010 applicable to the facts of the present case. The Apex Court has considered this aspect in three recent judgments viz. in G. Someshwar Rao vs. Samineni Nagehswar Rao & Anr.1, T. Nagappa vs. Y.R. Muralidhar 2 and in Kalyani Baskar vs. Mrs. M.S. Sampoornam 3 In the case of Kalyani Baskar (supra), the accused had denied the signature on the cheque and an application was made by him for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert, which was rejected and, under these circumstances, the Apex Court held that the accused cannot be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her evidence. After referring to provisions of section 243 of the Cr.P.C., the Apex Court observed, in the facts of the said case, that at the initial stage itself the accused had filed an application before the Magistrate under section 245 of the Cr.P.C. and had denied her signature on the cheque and its delivery to the respondent besides raising other preliminary objections in opposition to the complaint filed by the respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and had requested for sending the cheque in question for the opinion of the handwriting expert after the respondent had closed her evidence and, it was, therefore observed that the Magistrate should have granted such request, unless the Magistrate had come to the conclusion that the appellant was protracting the trial. Ratio of this 1 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2815 (S.C.) 2 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1945 (S.C.) 3 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 820 (S.C.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:45:28 ::: 10 APPLN 2987/2010 judgment will not apply to the facts of the present case since, in the present case, the applicant/accused has not disputed his signature on the said cheque but he is disputing the handwriting in filling up the other particulars of the said cheque.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 41 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next