2010 (12) TMI 1347 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rejects criminal revision petition challenging cheque ink age determination, emphasizes fair trial rights and NI Act presumptions.

The criminal revision petition challenging the dismissal of a petition to send a cheque for ink age determination was rejected by the court. The court ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the dismissal of the petition to send the cheque for ink age determination.2. Right to fair trial and opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence.3. Presumption u/s 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.4. Abuse of process and delay tactics by the accused.Summary:1. Validity of the dismissal of the petition to send the cheque for ink age determination:The criminal revision was preferred against the order dated 08.09.2010, dismissing the petition to send the cheque for ink age determination. The court noted that the cheque was signed by the second Petitioner as the Managing Partner of M/s. Decon Constructions and was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The Petitioners claimed the cheque was misused and sought to determine the ink's age. However, the court dismissed the petition, noting that similar petitions were previously filed and returned by forensic laboratories stating that the ink's age could not be determined.2. Right to fair trial and opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence:The court emphasized the right to a fair trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the right to adduce evidence u/s 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Hon'ble Apex Court in T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar and Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam held that the accused must be given a reasonable opportunity to discharge the burden of rebuttal evidence. However, the court also noted that this right should not be used to adopt delay tactics or abuse the process of law.3. Presumption u/s 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The court discussed the presumptions u/s 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which presume that the cheque was issued for consideration and for the discharge of debt or liability unless proven otherwise. The court highlighted that these presumptions are rebuttable, and the burden shifts to the accused to provide evidence to the contrary.4. Abuse of process and delay tactics by the accused:The court observed that the Petitioners' repeated attempts to send the cheque for ink age determination, despite previous rejections by forensic laboratories, indicated a delay tactic. The court held that the plea of issuing a blank signed cheque by the Managing Partner of a firm was not credible and that the Petitioners' actions were aimed at vexation and delaying the criminal proceedings.Conclusion:The court found no error or illegality in the lower court's order dismissing the petition to send the cheque for ink age determination. The criminal revision petition was dismissed, and the lower court was directed to dispose of the case on merits within two months, uninfluenced by the findings of this Court.