9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the order rejecting the application for sending disputed cheques to the handwriting expert. 2. Challenge to the order rejecting the application for recalling the witness for cross-examination. Summary: Issue 1: Challenge to the order rejecting the application for sending disputed cheques to the handwriting expert. The applicant challenged the order dated 21/04/2010 by the learned Magistrate, which rejected the application for sending disputed cheques to the handwriting expert. The applicant argued that there were material alterations in the cheques, making them void u/s 20 and 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant contended that the cheques were given as security and not filled by him, despite his undisputed signatures. The applicant cited Supreme Court judgments in Someshwar Rao vs. Samineni Nageshwar Rao, Mrs. Kalyani Baskar vs. Mrs. M.S. Sampoornam, and T. Nagappa vs. Y.R. Muralidhar to support his claim for a fair trial and the right to present evidence. The respondent argued that the application was intended to protract the trial and noted that the accused had not disputed the cheques' signatures earlier. The court observed that u/s 243(2) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has the discretion to reject applications made to delay the trial. The court referred to the legal position and relevant judgments, noting that the accused's right to a fair trial must be balanced against the potential misuse of procedural provisions to delay justice. The court concluded that the ratio of the cited judgments did not apply to the present case, as the applicant did not dispute his signature but only the handwriting filling the cheques. The Magistrate's decision to reject the application was upheld, considering it an attempt to protract the trial. The court emphasized that the applicant's defense regarding the blank cheque given as security could be decided based on evidence without needing a handwriting expert's opinion. Issue 2: Challenge to the order rejecting the application for recalling the witness for cross-examination. The applicant also challenged the order dated 15/06/2010, which rejected the application for recalling the witness for cross-examination. However, during the hearing, the applicant's counsel stated that he did not wish to press this application. Conclusion: The court dismissed the criminal application, upholding the Magistrate's orders rejecting the applications for sending the cheques to the handwriting expert and recalling the witness for cross-examination. The court found the applications to be attempts to delay the trial and emphasized the need for a balanced approach to ensure a fair trial while preventing procedural abuse.
|
