2006 (3) TMI 803 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the exercise of discretion by the learned J.M.F.C. in rejecting the application was proper and legal?
2. Whether the accused's defense was prejudiced by not sending the cheques and A.D. cards to a handwriting expert?
3. Whether the trial court should allow the accused to produce witnesses in support of his defense?
4. Whether the presumption under the Act would be available in favor of the Complainant even if the body of the cheque was not written by the accused?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Court considered whether the rejection of the application by the learned J.M.F.C. was proper and legal. The accused had requested the cheques and A.D. card to be sent to a handwriting expert for examination. The trial court concluded that the handwriting expert's opinion would only delay the trial and not help decide the dispute. The Additional Sessions Judge also dismissed the revision application, stating that sending the documents for examination would be futile. The Court, after detailed analysis, found no merit in the application and dismissed it.

Issue 2:
The accused contended that his defense was prejudiced by not sending the cheques and A.D. cards for handwriting analysis. The accused argued that this would prevent him from rebutting the presumption in favor of the Complainant. However, the Court noted that the cheques were signed and written by the accused, and sending them for examination would only cause delays in the trial process. The Court highlighted the legislative intent to expedite procedures in cases of dishonored cheques, emphasizing the need for timely disposal of cases.

Issue 3:
Regarding the accused's request to produce witnesses in support of his defense, the Court emphasized that while an accused should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence, the trial court has the discretion to limit this liberty to prevent prolonging proceedings. In this case, since the cheques were signed and written by the accused, the Court found no benefit in sending them for handwriting analysis, as the presumption under the Act would still favor the Complainant.

Issue 4:
The Court addressed the presumption under the Act in favor of the Complainant, even if the body of the cheque was not written by the accused. Citing judicial opinions, the Court explained that the presumption remains unless the accused proves otherwise. The Court highlighted the implied consent by the drawer when issuing a signed blank cheque, allowing the holder to complete it. The Court concluded that the refusal to send the documents for handwriting analysis was justified based on the evidence and defense presented.

In conclusion, the Court found no merit in the accused's application and dismissed it, emphasizing the need for expedited procedures in cases involving dishonored cheques and the discretion of the trial court in allowing evidence to prevent unnecessary delays.