Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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