2019 (2) TMI 392 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Examination of handwriting contained in the impugned cheque - Section 45 of the Evidence Act - relief granted of getting the age of handwriting of impugned cheques examined by some handwriting expert, even when the petitioner therein (respondent herein) have not prayed or requested for the same - Held that - the accused/respondent has taken a defence that he has never issued any cheques in favour of the petitioner, some of his cheques were stolen by someone and amounts of the cheques is filled by forging them. In such situation, the learned Revisional Court has rightly held that in view of the presumption available in favour of the complainant, the accused/respondent should be granted an opportunity to rebut that presumption. Reliance placed on the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court passed in the case of T. Nagappa Vs. Y. R. Muralidhar 2008 (4) TMI 789 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , where the court being the master of the proceedings must determine as to whether the application filed by the accused in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 243 of the Code is bona fide or not or whether thereby he intends to bring on record a relevant material. The Revisional Court has rightly granted the relief to the respondents - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revisional Court granting relief for examination of handwriting of disputed cheques.
2. Defence of the accused regarding the issuance and forgery of cheques.
3. Application of Sections 118-A and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
4. Opportunity for accused to rebut presumption in their defense.
5. Right of accused to fair trial and adduce evidence.
6. Judicial discretion in allowing accused to summon witnesses.
7. Bona fide nature of the application filed by the accused.
8. Consistency with previous judgments granting similar relief to accused.

Analysis:
1. The petitions arose from a common order passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge regarding the examination of handwriting of disputed cheques. The petitioner contested the Revisional Court's decision to grant relief for handwriting examination despite the respondent not requesting it.

2. The defence of the accused centered around denying the issuance of cheques to the complainant, alleging theft of some cheques and forgery in filling the amounts. The Revisional Court considered the presumption under Sections 118-A and 139 of the N.I. Act in favor of the complainant, leading to the decision to allow examination of handwriting to ensure complete justice.

3. The Revisional Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in T. Nagappa Vs. Y. R. Muralidhar, emphasizing the accused's right to rebut the presumption raised under the Act. The accused should be granted an opportunity to present evidence in their defense, ensuring a fair trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. The accused's right to a fair trial includes the ability to adduce evidence and summon witnesses relevant to their defense. The court must assess the bona fide nature of the accused's applications to ensure the relevance and necessity of the evidence sought to be presented.

5. The court upheld the Revisional Court's decision based on previous judgments granting similar relief to accused individuals in comparable circumstances. The consistency in granting such relief aligns with the principles of fair trial and the accused's right to defend themselves effectively.

6. In conclusion, the petitions lacked merit, and the court dismissed them, affirming the Revisional Court's decision as consistent with legal principles and previous judgments. The accused's right to rebut presumption and present a defense was upheld, ensuring a just and fair legal process.