Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2011 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2011 (2) TMI 1616 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues involved:
The petition seeks to set aside an order related to a cheque bouncing case under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The main issue is the determination of the age of the ink on the cheque.

Summary:

Issue 1: Setting aside the order in the cheque bouncing case
The petitioner, an accused in a cheque bouncing case, filed a petition to challenge the order made by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and confirmed by the Judicial Magistrate. The proceedings were initiated based on a private complaint for an offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Issue 2: Determination of the age of the ink on the cheque
During the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the cheque for expert examination to determine the age of the ink. The application was initially dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate based on the lack of scientific facility to determine the age of the ink. However, the petitioner produced evidence suggesting that the Central Forensic Science Laboratory in Hyderabad could ascertain the age of the ink by comparing it with an admitted signature from the same period.

Judgment:
The High Court allowed the criminal original petition, setting aside the orders of the Additional District and Sessions Judge and the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner was directed to submit his admitted signature for comparison within two weeks. The lower court was instructed to send both documents to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Failure to produce the admitted signature would result in the petitioner losing the opportunity for comparison.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates