The High Court dismissed the revision petition seeking quashing of interlocutory orders dismissing an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to determine the age of ink on a cheque in a Section 138 NI Act case. The Court held the lower courts acted reasonably.
The revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
Crl.M.No.M-13280 of 2013(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-13280 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: April 26, 2013
Kamal Kishore (Beldar)
.....Petitioner
v.
Devinder Kumar
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of impugned order dated 26.3.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot, vide which the Court held order dated 5.10.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot, interlocutory order and further for quashing of order dated 5.10.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot in complaint case No.151, dated 17.5.2010, Annexure P3, whereby application of the accused under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for determination of age of ink of the signature of the applicant on cheque was dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the orders passed by learned Courts below.
Briefly stated, complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed by respondent against present petitioner. Evidence of respondent already recorded. Case was at the stage of recording of evidence of present petitioner when the present application was moved. Perusal of application, Annexure P2, shows that the same is a vague one. It has been mentioned that cheque in question be sent to some expert to determine the age of ink of signatures of petitioner without specifying as to where the cheque is to be sent, who was to examine the cheque and who
-2-
Crl.M.No.M-13280 of 2013(O&M)
was to give report and who was to be examined in the Court. Sufficient reasons have been given by learned trial Court dismissing the application of petitioner-accused.
Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit.
26.4.2013 meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can interfere with the interlocutory order dismissing the application for determination of age of ink on cheque under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.
Whether any illegality or material irregularity was committed by the Courts below in dismissing the application.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Kamal Kishore
Devinder Kumar
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
