2011 (5) TMI 1135 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Application u/s 482 and 483 of Cr.P.C. challenging order passed by J.M.F.C. Amalner on application Exh.94.

Issue i: Complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 regarding dishonored cheque.

The applicant lodged a complaint against the respondent for dishonored cheque issued on 12.2.2007. Legal notice was served on 26.2.2007, but respondent did not respond, leading to the complaint before J.M.F.C. Amalner.

Issue ii: Application under Section 243 r.w. Section 45 for handwriting expert opinion.

After trial proceedings, respondent moved an application at Exh.94 requesting the disputed cheque to be referred to a handwriting expert. J.M.F.C. allowed the application, directing only the accused to provide specimen handwriting.

Issue iii: Challenge to the order passed by J.M.F.C. Amalner.

Applicant challenged the order passed by J.M.F.C. Amalner allowing the application Exh.94, alleging it was a tactic to prolong the trial. Respondent argued that his defense warranted the expert opinion and denied prolonging the litigation.

The High Court observed the respondent's defense regarding the missing cheque book since 2005 and misuse of cheques by the applicant. The Court referred to the accused's right to fair trial and the need for expert opinion in cases of disputed documents.

Referring to previous judgments, the Court emphasized the accused's right to lead evidence for a fair trial but cautioned against delaying tactics. The Court modified the relief granted by the trial court, directing the handwriting expert to determine if the particulars of the cheque were in the accused's handwriting.

The Court rejected the prayer to dismiss the application and ordered the lower court to obtain handwriting specimens of both parties and the disputed cheque for expert opinion. The respondent was directed to bear the expert's charges, with the case to be disposed of within a specified timeline.

The Rule was made absolute in modified terms, and the parties were instructed to act on the authenticated copy of the judgment for further proceedings before the lower court.