9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1102 - HC - Indian LawsRejection of prayer of the Petitioner (Accused) to get the documents relied upon by the Respondent/ Complainant sent for Forensic Analysis - Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - failure to give opportunity to the Petitioners to address the queries raised by the Court during the course of arguments on the Application which has been dismissed on conjectures surmises and presumptions which is impermissible in law - HELD THAT - CW.1 Sh. Mayank Periwal was examined once after which the statement of the accused Petitioners was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C but even thereafter they chose not to lead any evidence in defence. It is subsequent to further cross examination of CW.1 the Complainant that the Petitioners have claimed that new facts have emerged which have prompted them to file this Application for forensic examination of the signatures - This ground is totally fallacious because the Complaint itself mentioned that the signatures differed. The accused/Petitioners were denying their signatures from the date of summoning and there is no explanation which is forthcoming to explain why the Application was filed belatedly when the case was listed for final arguments. In the first instance after the statement of the Petitioners was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C final arguments were addressed and the case was reserved for Orders at which stage the Petitioners were permitted to further cross-examine the Complainant. Even thereafter this Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. had been filed when the matter was listed for final arguments. This Application was for sending the cheques for forensic examination of the signatures especially when the Memo of dishonour of the cheques itself stated that the signatures differed. The learned M.M has rightly rejected the Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C vide Order dated 15.05.2024. Conclusion - The accused s failure to lead defence evidence and delay in seeking forensic examination weigh heavily against permitting such applications at the final stage of trial. Petition dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Admissibility and propriety of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for forensic examination of disputed signatures Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon any person or call for any document or material relevant to the case at any stage of the proceedings, if it appears necessary for the just decision of the case. However, the exercise of this power is discretionary and must be guided by principles of fairness and procedural propriety. Courts have held that such power cannot be used for fishing expeditions or to fill gaps in evidence when the party has failed to lead evidence in a timely manner. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the dishonour memo itself stated that the cheques were dishonoured due to "Drawers Signature differs," a fact known to the accused from the outset. The accused had denied the signatures on the cheques from the date of receiving summons and had their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Despite this, they chose not to lead any defence evidence. The application for forensic examination was filed belatedly, after final arguments were addressed and the case was reserved for orders, and only after further cross-examination of the complainant. Key evidence and findings: The complainant's initial case and the dishonour memo clearly indicated signature discrepancies. The accused's failure to provide any defence evidence or explanation for the delay in filing the application was significant. The application was filed at a late stage without material particulars justifying the need for forensic examination. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that Section 311 Cr.P.C. should not be used to introduce evidence indirectly or circumvent procedural safeguards. Since the accused had the opportunity to lead evidence but chose not to, and since the application was filed without adequate material particulars and at an advanced stage of the trial, the Court found no justification to allow the forensic examination. Treatment of competing arguments: The accused argued that the authenticity of the signatures was disputed and that expert forensic opinion was necessary for a just trial. The Court acknowledged the importance of expert evidence but emphasized that the accused's delay and failure to lead defence evidence undermined the application's merit. The Court also noted that the learned Magistrate had not denied the application arbitrarily but based on lack of material particulars and procedural propriety. Conclusions: The Court upheld the rejection of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., holding that the accused's attempt to adduce evidence through this application was impermissible at such a late stage without adequate justification. Issue 2: Maintainability of revision petition against the Magistrate's interlocutory order Relevant legal framework and precedents: Generally, revision petitions are not maintainable against interlocutory orders unless specifically provided by law. Interlocutory orders are those which do not finally dispose of the case but deal with procedural or incidental matters. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the revision petition against the Magistrate's order dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Sessions Court on the ground that no revision lies against interlocutory orders. This position was accepted by the Court as legally sound. Key evidence and findings: The Magistrate's order was interlocutory in nature, dealing with the procedural aspect of allowing forensic examination, and did not finally decide the case. Application of law to facts: The Court agreed with the Sessions Court's dismissal of the revision petition as not maintainable, reinforcing the principle that interlocutory orders are generally not subject to revision. Treatment of competing arguments: The accused sought to challenge the Magistrate's order through revision, but the Court held that the proper remedy was not available at that stage. Conclusions: The Court affirmed that the revision petition was rightly dismissed as not maintainable. Issue 3: Impact of accused's failure to lead defence evidence and delay in filing application Relevant legal framework and precedents: The accused's right to lead defence evidence is fundamental, but failure to do so may result in adverse inference. Courts have held that applications for additional evidence or forensic examination filed belatedly, without explanation, are liable to be rejected. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that the accused had the opportunity to lead defence evidence but chose not to. The application for forensic examination was an afterthought filed when the matter was at the final stage. The Court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay or for not raising the issue earlier. Key evidence and findings: The accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, no defence evidence was led, and the application was filed only after the complainant was cross-examined again following the Sessions Court's order allowing further cross-examination. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that procedural delays and failure to utilize opportunities to lead evidence weigh against the accused's belated application for forensic examination. Treatment of competing arguments: The accused argued that new facts had emerged during cross-examination justifying the application. The Court found this argument fallacious as the fundamental issue of signature discrepancy was known from the beginning. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the accused's failure to lead defence evidence and delay in filing the application undermined the application's merit and justified its rejection. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held: "The learned M.M has rightly rejected the Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C vide Order dated 15.05.2024. There is no merit in the present Petition which is hereby, dismissed." Core principles established include:
The Court's final determination was to dismiss the petition challenging the Magistrate's order, thereby affirming the rejection of forensic examination of the disputed signatures and upholding the procedural propriety of the trial process as conducted.
|
