V.K. DHIR HOSIERY WORKS Vs. R.L. NAUHRIA
LAWS(P&H)-2012-1-94
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on January 18,2012

V.K. Dhir Hosiery Works Appellant
VERSUS
R.L. Nauhria Respondents

JUDGEMENT

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THE petitioners, who are facing trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, have filed the instant revision petition challenging the order dated 24.5.2011 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana whereby their prayer for seeking permission to examine Handwriting Expert in defence evidence was rejected.
(2.) AS per the averments made, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner-V.K. Dhir stating that he had given a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner for business purposes and in order to discharge his legal liability, petitioner issued Cheque No. 296608 dated 21.4.2003 for Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Civil Lines, Ludhiana in favour of the complainant. It was further averred that the said cheque was dishonoured and returned by the Banker with the remarks "No account and title of the account differs". Thus, it was prayed that the petitioner be punished in accordance with law. In the reply, the petitioner admitted his signatures on the disputed cheque however, he took a categoric stand that no loan of amount was given by the respondent-complainant to him and in fact the alleged cheque was misused and manipulated by the complainant. According to the petitioner, to prove his defence, he moved an application seeking permission of the Court to examine Handwriting Expert, who would inspect the file and take photographs of the cheque containing his signatures and other writings on the cheque and prayed that the application be allowed so that his defence may be proved by cogent and credible evidence and the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments act operating against him can be rebutted.
(3.) THE said application was contested by the complainant by filing reply on the ground that the said application has been filed only to delay the proceedings of the case and that the petitioner had admitted his signatures on the cheque and, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by allowing application.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.