9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 2050 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - legally enforceable debt or not - signature in the pro-note - age of the ink used in signature - section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT - The very defence of the accused while admitting his signatures on the pro-note and cheque by saying routed from his account in saying as a security in relation to a loan relating to the College of the Society to which the complainant was by then Treasurer and those blank documents of him even available with him are misused and those are not supported by consideration and there is no any legally enforceable debt and it requires determination of the age of the ink of the signatures on the pro-note and debt stated given at one time by him. In view of the above legal position and from the technology available it is easy to determine the age of the signature on pro-note one time of the signature respectively admittedly of the accused to probablise any iota of said defence of the accused which is a valuable right of defence of the accused from reverse onus clause once the cheque routed from his account with his signature admitted as per Rangappa and Mohan and from Nagappa and Kalyani Bhaskar supra such valuable right of defence of the accused from the request to send the documents to expert cannot be shunned by the Courts to his prejudice. The dismissal order of the lower Court is set aside and the revision is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the dismissal of the petition to send documents to CFSL for ink age determination. 2. Admissibility and relevance of expert opinion on the age of ink. 3. The accused's defense regarding the misuse of documents. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the dismissal of the petition to send documents to CFSL for ink age determination: The petitioner, accused in a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, filed a petition to send a pro-note and cheque to CFSL, Hyderabad, to ascertain the age of the signatures. The Special Magistrate dismissed this petition. The accused contended that the cheque and pro-note were collateral for a bank loan and were signed in 2009-10, but filled in 2017. The complainant opposed, stating no suggestion was made during cross-examination that signatures were in different inks. The court noted that the accused admitted the signatures were his and did not claim forgery. The Magistrate found no merit in determining the ink's age, as it would not resolve the real controversy and could be used to delay proceedings. 2. Admissibility and relevance of expert opinion on the age of ink: The court referred to multiple precedents, including T.Rajalingam @ Sambam v. State of Telangana, T.Nagappa v. Y.R.Muralidhar, and Rangappa v. Mohan, which discussed the reverse onus burden of the accused and the valuable defense right to request expert analysis. The court acknowledged the technology available at BABC, Mumbai, for determining ink age but noted conflicting views on its practical utility. The court highlighted that expert opinion is admissible and relevant, and its evidentiary value should be determined during the trial, not preemptively dismissed. 3. The accused's defense regarding the misuse of documents: The accused's defense was that the cheque and pro-note, signed in blank for security purposes, were misused. The court emphasized the accused's right to rebut the presumption of liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by providing evidence. The court concluded that determining the age of the ink could support the accused's defense and should not be dismissed without due consideration. Conclusion: The court set aside the lower court's dismissal order and allowed the petition to send the documents to CFSL for ink age determination. The Special Magistrate was directed to send the cheque and pro-note to Nutron Activation Analysis, BABC, Mumbai, a Central Government Organization, to determine if the signatures and written contents were made at the same time or different times. The accused was required to deposit Rs.20,000/- for this process. The court emphasized the accused's valuable right to defense and the necessity of expert analysis to ensure justice.
|
