2021 (1) TMI 339 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - expert opinion for cross-examination of cheques, sought - It is contended that the expert opinion would have aided the petitioner in setting up rebuttal evidence - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner had executed Exhibit P14 agreement acknowledging the liability and had entered the particulars of the cheques issued towards discharge of the liability in that document. The petitioner has not disputed his signature in the agreement. Further, the petitioner has not disputed his signature in the cheques or the amount entered in words. Therefore, as rightly found by the learned Magistrate, no purpose would be served by sending the cheques for expert opinion, other than delaying the trial unnecessarily. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for expert opinion on cheques entries rejected by lower court.

Analysis:
The petitioner, the 2nd accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sought expert opinion on cheques entries to disprove the complainant's claims. The complainant alleged the petitioner, as a Director, failed to pay for cement supplied. The lower court rejected the application, stating it would not aid in arriving at a just decision. The petitioner argued that obtaining expert opinion was crucial for presenting rebuttal evidence. However, the court found no purpose in sending the cheques for expert opinion as the petitioner did not dispute his signature on the cheques or the amount entered in words.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the lower court's decision, dismissing the petitioner's application for expert opinion on cheques entries. The court noted that the petitioner had acknowledged the liability in an agreement and did not dispute his signature on the cheques or the amount entered in words. Therefore, sending the cheques for expert opinion would only delay the trial unnecessarily. As a result, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case was dismissed.