Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Smt. Kalpana w/o Dilip Patil, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malkapur, dated 30 June 2014, which rejected her application (Exhibit 70) for referring a disputed cheque to a forensic laboratory. The cheque in question, bearing No. 682896 dated 25.11.2009, was allegedly issued by the applicant to the respondent, Jijamata Mahila Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd., towards satisfaction of an outstanding liability. The applicant contended that she had already discharged the liability through an amicable settlement on 31.3.2005, and at that time, she had issued four post-dated cheques bearing Nos. 682891 to 682895. She alleged that the respondent bank misused cheque No. 682896 by entering an amount not actually due and payable. To prove her defence, she filed an application on 16.6.2014 before the trial court seeking reference of the disputed cheque to a forensic laboratory for determination of the age of the handwriting and signature appearing thereon. This application was filed after the closure of the complainant's evidence and recording of her statement under Section 313 CrPC. The trial court rejected the application, leading to the present petition. The High Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the application, set aside the trial court's order, and directed the trial court to send the disputed cheque to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagpur, for determination of the age of the handwriting and signature. The court observed that the defence of the applicant would be seriously prejudiced if the forensic examination is not allowed, and the interest of justice requires such examination. The court also directed the trial court to decide the complaint expeditiously after receiving the report.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - Reference to Forensic Laboratory - The applicant sought reference of a disputed cheque to a forensic laboratory for determination of age of handwriting and signature to prove that the cheque was not issued at the time alleged but was misused by the bank. The trial court rejected the application as belated. The High Court held that the defence of the applicant would be seriously prejudiced if the forensic examination is not allowed, and the interest of justice requires that the disputed document be sent to the forensic laboratory. (Paras 4-9) B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Cheque Dishonour - Defence of Discharge - The applicant claimed that the liability was discharged by an amicable settlement in 2005 and that the cheque in question was misused by the bank. The High Court observed that the age of handwriting and signature on the cheque is a crucial factor to determine the veracity of the defence, and therefore, the application for forensic examination ought to have been allowed. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for referring the disputed cheque to a forensic laboratory for determination of age of handwriting and signature, and whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to allow such reference.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal application, set aside the order dated 30.6.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malkapur, and directed the trial court to send the disputed cheque (No. 682896 dated 25.11.2009) to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagpur, for determination of the age of the handwriting and signature appearing thereon. The trial court was further directed to decide the complaint expeditiously after receiving the report.
Law Points
- Section 482 CrPC
- inherent powers
- forensic examination
- age of handwriting
- cheque dishonour
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- defence opportunity
- fair trial
