Dismissed

M/S Vimal Enterprises and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Apr 2012REVN/164/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 138 NI Act, the High Court dismissed the applicant's challenge against the trial court's order rejecting a request for handwriting expert opinion. The Court held the applicant lacked locus standi and noted his defence admitted his signature on the blank cheque, making expert analysis unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking interference with the impugned order was dismissed.

2.Some time in 2004, respondent no.2 filed a criminal case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the applicant (S.T.C. no. 1690/2004). He alleged that the applicant failed to fulfill his liability arising from failure of a cheque of Rs. 4,00,000/-. On 24th February, 2005 respondent no.2/complainant adduced oral evidence through an affidavit. On 26th April, 2005, the applicant'sadvocatecrossexaminedrespondent no.2/complainant. During cross examination, the applicant'sAdvocatesuggestedtorespondent no.2/complainant that he had stolen the cheque in

question which was blank in all other respects but was kept signed by the applicant. On the next day i.e. 27th April, 2005, the applicant moved an application and requested the Court to send the cheque in question for handwriting expert's opinion. For the first time on that day, he took up a defence that the handwriting on the cheque did not belong to him. The application was rejected. Thereafter, the applicant remained absent and in 2008 he appeared before the Court and is now facing the trial. By this time, the applicant even recorded his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and again on 18th January, 2011, he demanded that the cheque in question should be sent to handwriting expert to find out as to whether the handwriting on the cheque except the sign belongs to him. The learned Judge then passed the impugned order mainly because similar application was moved earlier and was rejected.

3.This revision application fails for two reasons, firstly, the applicant had no locus to make similar application on second occasion. Secondly, the applicant is admitting his own signature on the cheque in question. It is only his case that other particulars on the cheque were filed in behind his back by respondent no.2/complainant and others. As said above, his defence is that his blank but signed cheque was stolen. If this part of the case is accepted by the Court below then there is practically no need to send the cheque in

question for opinion of the handwriting expert. If such a defence is proved, the case would end in favour of the applicant. The learned Judge while rejecting the application has appreciated the implications of the application and rightly rejected it.

M/S Vimal Enterprises and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vimal Enterprises and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janardan Vitthalrao Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Harichand @ Harischandra Ananta Roy Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahesh Ravindra Udawant Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Balu Gopinath Tandale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Bhagwat @ Bhaskar Borhade Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Gulab Pandurang Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra