TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 1378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby and whereunder a revision application, filed by the appellant herein, arising out of a judgment and order dated 07th April 2007 passed by the 1st Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam dismissing an application filed by the appellant for sending the disputed pronote and the cheque for examination of a handwriting expert, was dismissed. 3. According to the appellant, an agreement to sell was entered into in terms whereof one Bangi Venkanna and Y. Satyanarayana, brother-in-law of the 1st respondent agreed to purchase the appellant's share of the suit land for a total consideration of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lacs) and out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dhra Pradesh being Renu Devi Kedia v. Seetha Devi reported in AIR 2005 AP 180 : 2004 (6) ALT 429 and another decision reported in 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 161 (AP), stating: 12. In view of the decision of our own Hon'ble Court referred to above, there is every possibility for a party to disguise his signatures and as the transaction under Ex.P1 does not relate to Exs.P-1 and P-2, the same cannot be taken as an admitted document for comparison of the signatures of the petitioner / accused. Therefore, I see no useful purpose will be served in sending Exs.P-1 and P-2 to the Expert for comparison. Hence, I do not find any valid reason to allow this petition and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 6. The High Court, as noticed hereinbefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g: As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant, this Court dismissed the petition in Crl.M.P. No. 757 of 2007 by its order dated 7-4-2007 by turning down the request of the petitioner to send Ex.D1 documents to the Handwriting Expert by holding that Ex.D1 does not relate to Exs.P1 & P2 and, therefore, the same cannot be taken as an admitted documents for comparison of the signatures of the petitioner. 7. Revision application filed by the appellant there against has also been dismissed by the High Court by a separate order passed on the same date, viz., 22nd August 2007 in Crl.Revision Case No. 995 of 2007 which has also been challenged by the appellant by filing a separate Special Leave Petition being S.L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e a written statement, Sub-section (2) whereof reads as under: 243. Evidence for defence.- (1) ... (2) If the accused, after he had entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing: Provided that, when the accused has cross-examined or had the opportunity of cross-examining any witness before entering on his defenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant cannot be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her evidence and if it is denied to her, there is no fair trial. `Fair trial' includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove her innocence. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of that right means denial of fair trial. It is essential that rules or procedure designed to ensure justice should be scrupulously followed, and the courts should be jealous in seeing that there is no breach of them.... The said decision has been followed by this Court in the case of T. Nagappa (supra) opining: 8. An accused has a right to fair trial. He has a right to defend himself as a part of his human as also fundamental ri....