2000 (12) TMI 932

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petition are as follows: (a) The complainant, the Respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the Petitioner and the same was taken on file on 3.3.1998. The evidence for the prosecution was completed on 29.4.1998. After questioning, the case was posted for defence on 15.5.1998. Defence witnesses, viz., D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs. D1 and D2 were marked. The case was periodically adjourned. Finally, the case was posted on 19.2.1999 for further examination of defence witnesses. At that stage, the Petitioner/accused filed an application requesting the court to send the cheque in question to the handwriting expert to get the opinion regarding the age of the writings signature found in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not maintainable. 4. Even as regards merits, I do not find force in the contention of the counsel for the Petitioner. If the case projected by the accused in the application is true, the same would have been mentioned by way of reply to the statutory notice issued by the complainant to the accused. Admittedly, there was no reply even though the notice was received by the accused. 5. When P.W. 1 was examined, the case projected by the accused by putting suggestion to P.W. 1 was that the accused after signing the cheque handed over the same to the complainant and the complainant filed up the blanks and filed a false case. Now, after examination of D.Ws.1 and 2 as defence witnesses, the Petitioner has come forward with a new case by filing a....