2014 (11) TMI 1261 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - legally enforceable debt or not - rejection of petitioner's application for sending certain documents tendered by him in evidence, to the handwriting expert for examination and his opinion - section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT - Here was a case where the accused had come with a specific plea that he had already paid the amounts due and payable by him to the complainant, and as such, the cheque could not have been said to have been issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt, or other liability. He had categorically stated that the complainant had acknowledged the receipt of the said amounts. It is shocking that in spite of this categorical stand taken by the accused, neither the Magistrate, nor the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, felt the necessity of giving an opportunity to the accused to adduce evidence in support of his contention. It goes without saying that the accused is entitled to have an opportunity to adduce evidence in defence. In fact, if the accused is denied an opportunity to adduce evidence, the trial would be vitiated - The approach of the Magistrate and also that of the Addl. Sessions Judge was totally erroneous and contrary to the well settled principles of law. Denying the accused an opportunity to establish the stand taken by him, would be totally unfair and unjust - It was a simple case where the accused wanted to adduce defence evidence. It was nobody's case that the evidence intended to be adduced, was irrelevant or inadmissible. When that was so, it was not open for the Magistrate to say that it was not necessary for the accused to adduce that evidence. The impugned orders are patently illegal and contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. The principle that defence evidence (which is not irrelevant or inadmissible) can be prevented from being adduced only if the Court considers that the prayer to adduce such evidence, is made for the purpose of vexation, or delay, or for defeating the ends of justice, has been recognized by the Code of Criminal Procedure - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Dispute over sending documents to handwriting expert for examination in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- Rejection of petitioner's application by Magistrate and dismissal of revision application by Sessions Judge.
- Accused's plea of already repaying amounts and need for comparing signatures on documents.
- Denial of opportunity to accused to adduce evidence in defense.
- Violation of accused's right to adduce evidence and principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Analysis:
1. Dispute over sending documents to handwriting expert:
The petitioner, an accused in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sought to send certain documents to a handwriting expert for examination and opinion. The Magistrate rejected this application, leading to the petitioner filing a revision application that was also dismissed. The petitioner approached the High Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders passed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge.

2. Accused's plea and need for comparing signatures:
The accused contended that he had repaid the amounts to the complainant and presented documents signed by the complainant as evidence. The accused requested a comparison of these signatures with the complainant's admitted signatures. The accused's plea was deemed reasonable and proper, emphasizing the necessity of verifying the authenticity of the documents through an expert opinion.

3. Denial of opportunity to adduce evidence:
The Magistrate and the Addl. Sessions Judge were criticized for not allowing the accused to adduce evidence in defense despite the accused's specific plea and stand regarding the repayment of amounts. The High Court highlighted that denying the accused an opportunity to present evidence would vitiate the trial and emphasized the accused's right to adduce evidence, as upheld by superior courts and implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. Violation of principles of criminal jurisprudence:
The approach of the lower courts was deemed erroneous and contrary to established legal principles. The Magistrate's decision to compare signatures himself and dismiss the need for an expert opinion was criticized. The High Court emphasized that defense evidence, unless irrelevant or inadmissible, should not be prevented from being adduced, and any such prevention should be based on specific legal grounds as outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. Decision and directions by the High Court:
The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders and directing the Magistrate to permit the application for sending documents to a handwriting expert. The Magistrate was instructed to proceed with the case promptly, aiming for disposal within a specified timeframe. The High Court intervened to uphold the accused's right to present evidence and ensure a fair trial in accordance with legal provisions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal arguments, and the High Court's decision regarding the dispute over sending documents to a handwriting expert and the accused's right to adduce evidence in defense.