9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Cr.R. Nos.805, 806, 809 and 810 of 2017, Criminal Revision N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thereafter, the respondents filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act before the Judicial Magistrate First Class and prayed for examination of the handwriting of the disputed cheques. The learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 9.9.2016 rejected the prayer of the respondents on the grounds that in cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that contents of the cheques are in different ink, than the ink used in the signature of the respondents, signature on the cheques are not disputed by the respondents, the complainant has even admitted that pattern of handwriting are also different and lastly the applicants/respondents has not revealed that from whose handwriting he wants to compare the handwriting of the chequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Additional Sessions Judge, 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. 9. Learned Revisional Court has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of T. Nagappa Vs. Y. R. Muralidhar reported in (2008) 5 SCC 633 in paras 7 to 10 of the judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under:- 7. When a contention has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elled under this section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice. 9. What should be the nature of evidence is not a matter which should be left only to the discretion of the Court. It is the accused who knows how to prove his defence. It is true that 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. But ordinarily an accused should be allowed to approach the court for obtaining its assistance with regard to summoning of witnesses etc. If permitted to do so, steps therefor, however, m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
