Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Aniruddha Deodhar, was the accused in a summary criminal complaint case (Criminal Complaint Case No.5952 of 2010) filed by the respondent, Meena Gupta, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the trial, the accused sought forensic examination of the cheque to determine the age of the ink. On 27th March 2012, the trial court passed an order below Exh.66 accepting the accused's submission and directing him to take hamdast and deliver the cheque to the Forensic Laboratory at Nagpur on the same day. However, the trial court did not first ascertain whether the Nagpur laboratory could perform such an examination. Consequently, the accused returned with a letter from the Nagpur Forensic Laboratory stating that the examination was not done there but at Hyderabad. The accused then filed a pursis (a note) informing the court of this and requesting hamdast to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. On 9th April 2012, the trial court rejected the pursis, stating that an application was required instead. The accused then filed a formal application, which the trial court rejected on the ground that it would delay the proceedings and that the case was old. The accused filed the present criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the rejection. The High Court observed that the trial court's initial order was flawed for not ascertaining the correct laboratory, and its subsequent rejection of the pursis and application was inconsistent and caused prejudice to the accused. The court noted that a period of about one year had passed since it granted stay, and the trial court's actions had made its first order meaningless. The High Court allowed the application, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to accept the pursis and proceed with forwarding the cheque to the Hyderabad laboratory for examination, ensuring that the trial is concluded expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Section 397, 401 CrPC - Interference with Trial Court Orders - The High Court can interfere when the trial court's orders are inconsistent and cause prejudice to a party - Held that the trial court's rejection of the application after initially ordering hamdast was arbitrary and amounted to abuse of process (Paras 2-4). B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Cheque Dishonour - Section 138 - Forensic Examination of Cheque - The trial court must ascertain the correct forensic laboratory before directing hamdast - Held that the trial court's failure to do so led to unnecessary delay and wasted time (Paras 2-3). C) Criminal Procedure - Procedure - Pursis vs Application - A pursis is a valid mode of bringing facts to the court's notice - Held that the trial court's insistence on a formal application was hyper-technical and not in the interest of justice (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's rejection of the accused's application for forwarding the cheque to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for examination of age of ink, was justified in law and facts.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal application, set aside the impugned order dated 9.4.2012, and directed the trial court to accept the pursis and proceed with forwarding the cheque to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for examination. The trial court was also directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Law Points
- Criminal Procedure
- 1973 - Section 397
- Section 401
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881 - Section 138
- Forensic Examination
- Age of Ink
- Hamdast
- Pursis
- Delay in Trial
