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

Share:
bail sex property bail arrest lambardar IPS provisions CyberspaceMurder Evidence Auction Discipline Cross-Examination Training evidence account kidnapping Tenant wasting 68 accident land cheque land withdrawal father transfer post fir Signature railways copyright probation cheque circumstances motor murder plaint notice bail proceedings admissible justice pay evidence ndps rice Teachers bail juvenile conviction property motor bail corporation suicide probation statement electricity bail Bail drugs time person JATINDER WALIA ASJ juvenilefalse bail passport authorities sale notice suit convict fir evidence murder surety suicide bailable daughters trial suit adult license answer hall business reservation

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                    

Download Judgment

Share: