2021 (7) TMI 737 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - legality of signature on a money receipt which forms the basis of consideration behind the cheque in question - refusal to to send the document in question to a handwriting expert quite sometime ago - HELD THAT - The learned revisional Court seems to have erred in holding that the application for seeking the handwriting expert's opinion was filed after the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code. In any event, even after examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code, an accused can seek the opinion of a handwriting expert - If the purported money receipt is not sent to an expert for comparison, it would amount to denying a fair trial to the accused. The application of the petitioners shall appropriately be allowed to send the money receipt to a handwriting expert for comparing the signature of the accused with those in admitted documents - Trial Court are set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to send the money receipt in question to a handwriting expert for comparison with the signature of the accused present in admitted documents - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing revision and affirming order in complaint case under Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the order dismissing the revision and affirming the order in a complaint case under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners sought to compare the signature on a money receipt relied upon by the complainant with the accused's admitted signature. They argued that the signature on the money receipt was crucial to establish the consideration behind the cheque in question. The Magistrate compared signatures on various documents but did not compare the signature on the money receipt, leading to a futile exercise. The petitioners contended that the refusal to send the money receipt to a handwriting expert denied them a fair trial. The complainant argued that the petitioners' application for a handwriting expert was a delay tactic, as the Magistrate had already compared signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. The High Court noted that even after the accused's examination under Section 313 of the Code, they could seek a handwriting expert's opinion, citing legal precedent.

The High Court found that the petitioners had challenged the refusal to send the document to a handwriting expert earlier, and their participation in the trial did not preclude the Court from deciding the revisional application on merits. Emphasizing the importance of comparing the signature on the money receipt, the Court directed the Trial Court to send the money receipt to a handwriting expert for comparison with the accused's signature on admitted documents. The Court stressed the need for expeditious completion of the exercise, urging the Trial Court to conclude the proceeding promptly without unnecessary adjournments, in line with statutory requirements under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petitioners' application, setting aside the impugned orders and directing the Trial Court to send the money receipt to a handwriting expert for comparison. The Court highlighted the significance of ensuring a fair trial by comparing signatures and instructed the Trial Court to expedite the process, emphasizing the importance of timely completion of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act.