2020 (1) TMI 1605

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ainst the petitioner Ankit Shrivastav alleging therein that the petitioner had borrowed an amount of  Rs. 2,30,000/- from him and in order to repay the same, the petitioner had issued two cheques i.e. cheque No.073443 and cheque No. 073444 of 25.5.2017, each for an amount of  Rs. 1,15,000/-. However, the said cheques, upon presentation, were dishonoured, leading to filing of the complaint. 3. During the pendency of the trial, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the petitioner/accused for examination of two witnesses. The contents of the application dated 19.7.2019 (Annexure P-6) read as follows :- "The applicant respectfully showeth :- 1. That the above noted case is pending before ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....trial Court fell in error in declining the aforesaid prayer and that the petitioner stands seriously prejudiced on account of dismissal inasmuch as it is a case where the cheques in question had been issued as security cheques and were infact for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- only whereas the complainant had written the digit '1' before the figure 15,000/- so as to make it Rs. 1,15,000/-. The learned counsel has submitted that a perusal of the cheques in question with naked eye itself would show that the digit '1' as written twice in the figure 1,15,000/- are not parallel with each other. It has further been submitted that the examination of the said cheques by Expert would clearly indicate that the digit '1' before the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocument because another relevant question that would crop up so as to raise doubts about such opinion would be as to the actual age of ink i.e as to when the ink in question was manufactured. A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, 1971 SCC(1) 396, elaborately dealt with this issue and laid down as under :- "11. After consultations between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Law, the Home Ministry sent certain old writings of the year 1904, 1949, 1950 and 1959, and requested the Director to determine the age of the writing of the disputed horoscope and marginal note in the almanac by comparison. The Director on April 17, 1965 wrote that it "was impossible....