TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses Revision, upholds decision on forensic examination of cheques. Advocate Commissioner appointment deemed unnecessary.</h1> <h3>Indira Balasubramaniam, A.B. Chandrasekar, Padma @ Padmavathi, Meena @ Meenakshi Versus S. Subash</h3> The High Court dismissed the Revision, concurring with the lower Court that forensic examination of the disputed cheques would not yield scientifically ... - Issues Involved:1. Appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to send disputed cheques for forensic examination.2. Determination of the age of ink used in the cheques.3. Legal principles regarding the right to fair trial and adducing rebuttal evidence.Summary:1. Appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to send disputed cheques for forensic examination:The petitioners/defendants filed an application in I.A.No.115 of 2008 seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to send the disputed cheques to a Forensic Science Expert for examination. The first appellate Court dismissed this application, leading to the current Revision.2. Determination of the age of ink used in the cheques:The petitioners argued that the cheques were presented after a long time and fabricated, with the signature in one ink and the writings in another. They sought forensic examination to prove that the cheques were not drawn by the drawer. The respondent/plaintiff contended that the cheques were valid and supported by consideration, and there was no necessity for expert opinion. The lower Court dismissed the petition, noting that determining the age of the ink scientifically is not possible with accuracy.3. Legal principles regarding the right to fair trial and adducing rebuttal evidence:The petitioners cited judgments to support their right to a fair trial and the opportunity to disprove the genuineness of the cheques. They referenced the Supreme Court judgment in T.Nagappa Vs. Y.R.Muralidhar, which emphasized the right to adduce rebuttal evidence. The respondent/plaintiff countered with a judgment from this Court (2008 (1) CTC 491) stating that the age of the ink cannot be determined with scientific accuracy. The Court concluded that sending the cheques for forensic examination would not yield scientifically accurate results and upheld the lower Court's decision to dismiss the petition.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the Revision, agreeing with the lower Court that sending the cheques for forensic examination would not provide scientifically accurate results and would not aid in resolving the case. The petitioners' request was deemed unnecessary and the lower Court's decision was upheld.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
