9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Request for expert examination of promissory notes in criminal revision cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Admission of signatures by the petitioner. 3. Defense of material alteration in promissory notes raised at the appellate stage. 4. Consideration of expert opinion in criminal cases. 5. Application of Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Comparison of civil and criminal procedures for expert scrutiny of documents. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sought expert examination of promissory notes during the appeal process. The Appellate Court, noting the petitioner's unambiguous admission of signatures on the promissory notes, rejected the request, leading to the filing of criminal revision cases. 2. The petitioner's counsel argued that material alterations in the promissory notes warranted expert scrutiny for substantial relief. However, the respondent's counsel contended that the petitioner's admission of signatures precluded the need for expert examination. 3. The Court emphasized that the defense of material alteration, not raised during the trial, could not be introduced at the appellate stage to avoid endless factual disputes. The petitioner's failure to address the alleged alterations earlier barred raising this defense subsequently. 4. The Court highlighted the summary nature of proceedings under Section 138 of the Act and the importance of relying on existing evidence without introducing new factual claims during the appellate process. 5. Referring to Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court cited precedents emphasizing that additional evidence should not prejudice the accused or alter the nature of the case. The discretion to admit new evidence must align with the principles of justice and fairness. 6. Drawing a distinction between civil and criminal procedures, the Court rejected the petitioner's attempt to delay proceedings by seeking expert opinion on admitted signatures, as seen in civil cases. The Court dismissed the criminal revision cases and associated petitions, emphasizing the need for efficient resolution without unnecessary delays. In conclusion, the Court upheld the Appellate Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the trial process and avoiding tactics aimed at prolonging legal proceedings. The dismissal of the criminal revision cases underscored the Court's commitment to efficient and fair adjudication in criminal matters.
|
