TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable against the revisional order of the Sessions Court in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) Whether the accused was entitled to have the cheque sent to a handwriting expert for opinion on the age of the signature and writings.
Issue (i): Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable against the revisional order of the Sessions Court in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Analysis: The petition sought to challenge an order already passed in revision by the Sessions Court. Entertaining a further petition under Section 482 in such circumstances would amount to a second revision. The petition was therefore not maintainable.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.
Issue (ii): Whether the accused was entitled to have the cheque sent to a handwriting expert for opinion on the age of the signature and writings.
Analysis: The request was made belatedly after the evidence had progressed substantially, and the defence version was inconsistent with the stand earlier taken. The Court held that ample opportunity had already been given, that the application was intended to delay the proceedings, and that once execution of a cheque is admitted, the identity of the person who filled in the body of the instrument is not material to liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.
Final Conclusion: The challenge was rejected in its entirety, the request for expert examination was refused, and the trial was directed to proceed expeditiously with costs imposed for misuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi: A petition under Section 482 cannot be used as a second revision, and in a cheque case the admitted execution of the instrument makes the handwriting on the body of the cheque immaterial to liability.
TaxTMI 
