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 the petitioner's request to send the cheque and related exhibits for handwriting and scientific examination should be allowed at the stage when the accused had admitted his signature and the proceeding had already been delayed; (ii) Whether, notwithstanding refusal of such expert examination, the accused was entitled to lead defence evidence to rebut the statutory presumption.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's request to send the cheque and related exhibits for handwriting and scientific examination should be allowed at the stage when the accused had admitted his signature and the proceeding had already been delayed.
Analysis: The signature on the cheque was not disputed and was admitted even in the accused's statement. The application for expert examination was moved at a belated stage in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where expeditious disposal is statutorily expected. In those circumstances, the refusal to send the cheque or other exhibits for expert opinion was justified, particularly when the accused had not yet led defence evidence to show fabrication or falsity of the documents.
Conclusion: The refusal to send the cheque and exhibits for expert examination was upheld and no interference was made on that aspect.
Issue (ii): Whether, notwithstanding refusal of such expert examination, the accused was entitled to lead defence evidence to rebut the statutory presumption.
Analysis: Even where the presumption under the negotiable instruments law operates against the accused, it remains rebuttable, and the right to present defence evidence is an essential facet of fair trial. The accused was therefore entitled to place rebuttal material on record, including any private handwriting expert report or other scientific evidence, so long as the trial was not further derailed. The trial court was required to afford at least one opportunity to adduce such evidence.
Conclusion: The accused was held entitled to lead defence evidence and to place rebuttal scientific material on record, subject to no inordinate delay.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of the expert-examination request failed, but the accused's opportunity to adduce defence evidence was preserved, and the proceeding was disposed of with directions to the trial court to grant that opportunity.
Ratio Decidendi: A belated request for handwriting or scientific examination of a cheque may be refused where the drawer has admitted the signature and the move would unduly delay a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, but the accused's right to rebut the statutory presumption by leading defence evidence must still be protected.
TaxTMI 
