Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization

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