Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

P&H High Court Denies Expert Examination for Disputed Signatures in Cheque Bounce Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Anuj Sharma vs. Pardeep Kumar Rana, has held that disputed signatures on a cheque are not sufficient grounds to grant permission for the examination of a handwriting expert. The judgment, delivered by Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill, reinforces the principle that parties must lead evidence on disputed signatures at the appropriate stage of a trial.

“There is no denying the fact that the respondent had disputed his signatures on the cheque from the very beginning. Having been aware of such stand of the respondent, it was incumbent upon the petitioner/complainant to lead his evidence so as to seek examination of a handwriting expert to compare the signatures of the respondent on the cheque with his specimen signatures...”

—      Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill

The case pertains to a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, wherein the accused had denied his signatures on the cheque from the outset. The petitioner sought permission to compare the accused’s signatures on the cheque with specimen signatures, a request which was denied by the trial court. The petitioner contended that the accused’s signatures for the expert were taken after summons from the court, rather than within the court premises.

Justice Gill, while dismissing the petitioner’s application, cited the decisions of coordinate benches and reiterated that allowing the examination of experts at the defense stage, as rebuttal evidence, is not permissible. The court further emphasized that reports from experts are not binding on the court and that it is the court’s prerogative to apply its own judgment to arrive at a logical conclusion.

“This ruling underscores the importance of leading evidence on disputed signatures in a timely manner during the trial process. It prevents parties from seeking to introduce expert opinions as an afterthought at the defense stage,” said legal expert Kapil Dev.

 Date of Decision: 18.08.2023

Anuj Sharma vs Pardeep Kumar Rana                    

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Anuj_Sharma_Vs_Pardeep_18Aug23_PH.pdf"]

Latest Legal News