9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to impugned judgment and order, handwriting expert opinion on cheque, presumption of debt for which cheque was issued, authority to complete cheque, quashing and setting aside of order.
Summary: The petitioner filed a petition challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, which allowed a Revision Application by the respondent to send a cheque to a handwriting expert. The accused had requested the cheque to be sent for handwriting analysis as the contents were not in his handwriting. The Magistrate rejected this request, leading to the Revision Application. The petitioner argued that there is an implied authority to complete a cheque in one's handwriting, and there is a presumption of debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent requested the court to reserve liberty to lead evidence to rebut the debt presumption. After hearing both parties, the court found that the revisional court erred in allowing the Revision Application and quashing the Magistrate's order. The court held that there is an implied authority to complete a cheque by filling in blanks, and the presumption of debt can be rebutted with evidence. The petition was successful, and the impugned order was quashed, restoring the Magistrate's order. In conclusion, the court emphasized the legal principles regarding the completion of cheques and the presumption of debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused has the opportunity to rebut the debt presumption with appropriate evidence during the trial.
|
