9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Revision under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.PC for setting aside order dated 26-4-2010 passed by Fourteenth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Criminal Revision No. 170/2010, concerning application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act by the respondent/accused.
Summary: The applicant/complainant filed a complaint against the respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, alleging that a cheque issued by the respondent was dishonored by the bank due to "stop payment" by the respondent. The respondent filed applications under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and Section 311 of Cr.PC, requesting a Handwriting Expert's report on the disputed cheque and recalling the complainant and witness for further cross-examination. The Trial Court rejected both applications, but the Revisional Court allowed the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, leading to this revision. The applicant argued that since the respondent admitted his signature on the cheque, there was no need for a Handwriting Expert examination. Citing Section 139 of the Act and a relevant case law, it was contended that the presumption favored the holder of the cheque unless proven otherwise. The belated application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was also highlighted as a point of contention. In response, the respondent contended that while admitting his signature, he denied writing the other contents of the cheque, emphasizing the need for a Handwriting Expert examination. The respondent's defense included reporting the lost cheque and sending a "stop payment" intimation to the bank. After considering the arguments and documents, the Court noted that the respondent admitted his signature on the cheque, triggering a presumption under Section 20 of the Act that the cheque was issued by the signatory after proper filling. The Court agreed with the Trial Court's decision that no Handwriting Expert examination was necessary for the disputed cheque's other contents. The order allowing the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was deemed illegal and unsustainable, leading to setting it aside and allowing the revision.
|
