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>High Court allows revision of order denying handwriting examination, upholding accused's defense rights.</h1> <h3>Bijender Singh Versus Mukesh Gupta</h3> Bijender Singh Versus Mukesh Gupta - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the application to send the cheque for handwriting examination should have been allowed.2. Whether the order declining the application was interlocutory and thus not subject to revision under Section 397 of the CrPC.3. The right of the accused to defend under Section 243 of the CrPC.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Application to Send the Cheque for Handwriting Examination:The petitioner challenged the orders dated 05.03.2015 and 03.10.2015, which declined the request to send a cheque for handwriting examination. The trial court held that since the accused admitted the signatures on the cheque, the payee had the implied authority to fill in the particulars under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The core issue was the agreement related to the sale of property and the issuance of the cheque as security. The court concluded that sending the cheque for handwriting analysis would not aid in resolving this core issue, especially since the accused could not confirm whether the signatures on the agreement were his.2. Interlocutory Order and Revision under Section 397 CrPC:The ASJ (Special Fast Track Court) held that the order declining the application was interlocutory and thus not revisable under Section 397 of the CrPC. However, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court judgments in 'Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra' and 'Amar Nath and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.' to clarify that an interlocutory order, though not conclusive of the main dispute, may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter it deals with. The High Court determined that the order in question was not purely interlocutory as it substantially affected the rights of the accused and thus was subject to revision.3. Right to Defend under Section 243 CrPC:The High Court cited the Karnataka High Court's decision in 'Poornima Finance Corporation Vs. Lilly Joseph' and the Supreme Court's decision in 'Mrs. Kalyani Baskar Vs. Mrs. M.S. Sampoornam,' which emphasized the statutory right of the accused to present a specific defense. Denying the request to refer documents for expert examination deprives the accused of this right, making such orders revisable under Section 397 CrPC. The trial court's refusal to send the documents for handwriting examination was seen as impacting the accused's ability to defend himself, particularly regarding the authenticity of the agreement Ex.CW1/A.Conclusion:The High Court set aside the order dated 03.10.2015 of the ASJ (Special Fast Track Court) and directed the revisional court to dispose of the revision petition on merits. The High Court emphasized the importance of the accused's right to defend and the necessity of examining the documents in question to ensure a fair trial. The petition was thus allowed to the extent of setting aside the impugned order and directing a merits-based review of the revision petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
