Promotees Allowed to Challenge Provisional Seniority List in Dispute Between Direct Recruitment and Promotion: Kerala High Court Frivolous Defenses Cannot Justify Leave to Defend Under Order XXXVII CPC Delhi High Court Candidates Merely Enrolled in Final Year B.V.Sc. Program Ineligible for Veterinary Officer Recruitment: Rajasthan High Court Manufacturing or Sale of Garments Does Not Attract Copyright Protection; Procedural Violations Under Trade Marks Act Renders Prosecution Unsustainable: P&H High Court Ownership Alone Is Not Sufficient to Maintain Eviction Suit; Plaintiff Must Qualify as a Lessor Under Lease Agreement: Calcutta High Court Findings Based on Evidence Cannot Be Interfered With in a Second Appeal Without Substantial Question of Law: AP High Court Chain of Circumstances Broken: Inferences Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Kerala High Court Bail | Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21 of the Constitution: Bombay High Court Encroachment on a Common Lane Gives Rise to Recurring Cause of Action: Madras High Court Holds Limitation Act Inapplicable to Pathway Disputes Reproductive Autonomy Includes the Right to Abort Without Spousal Consent: P&H High Court Access to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 is Not an Absolute Bar Against MSEFC Awards: Supreme Court Refers Key Questions on Writ Jurisdiction to Larger Bench Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted for Title and Mortgage Disputes Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court Principle of Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: Supreme Court Panchayat Law | Mandatory Compliance With Section 34 And Rule 3 Is Non-Negotiable In Resignation Cases: Bombay High Court Quashes Resignation Of Upa-Sarpanch Recovery of Bullet Fired from Accused’s Weapon Crucial: PH High Court Reaffirms Conviction in Murder Case Injured Witness Evidence Carries Built-in Reliability Unless Contradicted Significantly: Kerala High Court Partly Allows Appeal in Murder Case Civil Dispute with Criminal Elements Cannot Be Quashed Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Karnataka High Court Issuance of Summons Under Section 91 CrPC During Preliminary Verification is Without Jurisdiction: High Court of J&K and Ladakh Article 21 Prevails Over NDPS Act’s Section 37 Restrictions in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Once a Property is Waqf, It Remains Waqf Perpetually: Calcutta High Court Affirms No Secular Ownership Can Derive from Waqf Properties Surveillance Without Opportunity to Object Violates Articles 14, 19, and 21: Allahabad High Court Quashes Class-B History Sheets Mandatory Provisions of Order XXI CPC Were Violated, Rendering the Auction Sale Illegal: Punjab and Haryana High Court

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"]

Similar News