Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Annappa Maruti Magadum, was a member of the respondent, Karnataka Multipurpose Souhard Sahakari Ltd., Chikkodi. He had availed an MTL loan of Rs.8,00,000 on 09.03.2012, agreeing to repay with interest at 15% per annum and 3% penal interest in default, in monthly installments of Rs.13,335. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that the petitioner issued a cheque which was dishonoured. During the trial, the petitioner-accused filed an application under Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking to send the disputed documents for handwriting expert opinion to prove his defence. The trial court rejected this application by order dated 11.03.2019 in C.C. No.991/2014. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench. The High Court heard both sides. The petitioner argued that the rejection of the application denied him a fair opportunity to prove his defence. The respondent opposed the petition. The High Court, after considering the facts and submissions, found that the trial court's order was erroneous and that the accused has a right to adduce evidence in his defence. The court held that the rejection of the application without valid reasons would prejudice the petitioner's case. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2019, and directed the trial court to reconsider the application afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The court also directed the trial court to dispose of the main case expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Order - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Rejection of Application for Expert Opinion - The petitioner-accused challenged the order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chikkodi in C.C. No.991/2014, whereby his application under Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was rejected. The High Court held that the trial court's order was erroneous as it denied the accused a fair opportunity to prove his defence. The petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to reconsider the application afresh. (Paras 1-6) B) Evidence - Handwriting Expert - Section 45 r/w Section 73 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Right to Defence - The accused sought to send documents for expert opinion to disprove the complainant's case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The High Court observed that the accused has a right to adduce evidence in his defence, and rejection of such application without valid reasons would prejudice his case. The matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the accused under Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking to send the disputed documents for handwriting expert opinion, thereby denying the accused an opportunity to prove his defence in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chikkodi in C.C. No.991/2014, and directed the trial court to reconsider the application under Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The trial court was also directed to dispose of the main case expeditiously.
Law Points
- Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
- Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Right to fair trial
- Opportunity to adduce defence evidence
