9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. 2. Grievance of the petitioner in all four petitions is that even after dismissal of the application of the respondent for getting the handwriting of the disputed cheques examined from an expert, the Revisional Court reverse the order of the Trial Court and granted a relief 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. 3. Short facts of the controversy between the parties is that the petitioner filed four separate complaints in the year 2011 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondents for dishonour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ues were filled by forging them. It is also observed by the learned Revisional Court that the presumption is available under Sections 118-A and 139 of the N. I. Act, 1881 in favour of the complainant, therefore, the accused should be granted an opportunity to rebut that and as the petitioner therein has claimed that ink of contents and ink of signatures are different, therefore, it is necessary to get it examine that both the entries were made at the same time or not and, therefore, examination of age of both the entries is necessary to do the complete justice. Against this order, the present criminal revisions have been preferred by the present petitioner. 7. The petitioner has raised all the grounds similar to the grounds mentioned by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for that purpose to adduce evidence is recognized by the Parliament in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under : "Section 243 - Evidence for defence. (1) * * (2) If the accused, after he had entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross- examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing: Provided that, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the opinion that the application filed by the appellant was bona fide. 10. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Nagappa (supra), this Court in Sohanlal Sinhal and others Vs. Sunil Jain, reported in 2015 (1) MPLJ, Ram Singh Damor Vs. Sunil Kumar, reported in 2012 Legal Eagle (MP) 222, Rajendra Mundara Vs. Kailash Jain 2015-2, 93 M.P., Satyanarayan Vs. State of M.P. 2015-4 57 MP and Ramsevak Vs. Narayansingh 2014-1 DCR 665 MP have granted the same relief to the accused therein. 11. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and in the backdrop of the defence taken by the respondents, the Revisional Court has rightly granted the relief to the respondents. No error appears in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
