A I KAPMC YARD YELLAPUR R/O KARADIGE MAME
1
IN THE man comm' op KARNATAKA, ~j 1%
cmcurr BENCH AT DHARWAD '
DATED THIS 218'?' DAY 01?; cA)M<:f11'oB":;?:i+:;~~AY:'--1:f¥;'¥{E'_
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETiTI{)NER PRAYING».__TH:ATL'TH§S *
HQNBLE comm MAY BE. 'PLEASED TO .SE'E'.._B.SID.E'-TIi_E"V.
GREEK DATED 4.12.2007 PA:3S*ED. BY ,'I.'Hi3'., Jr..€:rc.»,
YELLAPUR in CC No.360/2005 (PC Nazés/'2o05)"---(Fo;2___'ra:;_n;
OFFENSE UIS. 138 OF' NI ACT).
THIS PETITION COMiNۤ"ON F032 Ap'M1S$i'oN'"'1'H1s""
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FC1I§LQWINC%:_ 'T ' '
On x'cje¢ti§)£1_ of Sec.-45 of the
Elvidcnce of ths JMFC,
has pmfcred this
pefififxn irivoifiitig' af ' Cr. P. C.
V» _{ ' to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
prosecutien launched by the respondent for
3430.138 of the Negetiabic Instruments
Act. the petitioner deniaed her signature on the
1 which was éishonsuxcd on pressfitatic:-1:1 by the
” on the premise that there was no suficient fitnds.
__’§1’he petitioner prcfarreti an application {:0 refer the
disputed signature an the Chflqllfl in question for
compazison with the admitted signaium of {he petitiozger on
the vakalat, plea and statement recorded 11I1€i_.E3.1_’_ ‘
Cr.P.C for an expcxfs opinion, which was j
the decision in K x mm vs 2:: it Aahdk
2007 Kar.963. Learned
JMFC nqt being expat” ‘rt, V
rtrjected the applicafiap, b1;Vt””ofig1:if”-~1;o hé§gv..;1iréctcd K’
sex~.z:2rE¥”;g.’; of an opinion expert.
3. ‘§.”‘§”z’§Q .’;’.’£.1’1;:«.a t: ehéq11e §%hea presented was
(fig?-:§§gs:u’;rad. ::’:?;.V ‘izjslzfiacient minds and not on
£”:’§%;<z':§\-»;:E£?§'§ " sifiaturc, by the bank, the
pa;é.;§};.i<§nc1's défcafiéé thfit the cheque in question did not bear
could be established by securing the Bank
A ._!VI5:'a_z3__,a1 g" to the specimen sigma' tune while opcn1'ng"§\m
aécourit' 1:11;: petitioner in the bank, a comparison of
" 5 €1"Y'r\::x|3='.S ""~"
..w1;ich’=— fioufi support the case Gfthc petitiomzz; in defence.
” was precisely the very fact ma: was considered in H M
% u ._ ..$atis1:1’s case (supra) while mfixsing the Ieqqcst for expertfs
0¥,”2i3′:駒r1 over the disputed sigzaature “on the cheque. No
exception can be taken to the said finding ofihe JMFC
W
4. Leaxned counsel for the petitioner .,
upon the decisism in T !laga1;_v pa
reported in 2008 AIR scwV3349.”‘-Fécts oi§..%j}.1.§étv”sSai-v:£
are that the appeiiant had case V.£Tg1§{€:hcquc V
in question for examiflafion 33 i;’ei’V Forensic
Science Laboratory ‘f;)1l”‘ age of his
signature, 013 V’ I’t1’8pOI1dCI1t had
obtaineci A in the year 1999 as
A’ ‘Rs,5<i,ooo/~, which had been
paié " the cheque, the samc
had bce1iV'1n-_is'us:c c1- __ a huge amount,Which he did
. ¢_ I1(_!é9i5U\?€:ft_'_,; "touthe' ézpptjllant.
' !?7f:a:ct;~: §3f tins' case are not identical or si2:m1ar' to
thé' tifthe case in T4 1\Ea.gappa's case consisiereé by tha
Apgzx In that vim of the matter, that judgment has
hi: éippiicaflon to tbs facts of this case.
In 'Chi': result, the petition is without merit and is
accordingly rejected. It is open to the petitionezr to take
M
3/
such steps as I available in Law, to havfrl
present, before the court, to tenciiéf éVid_c11ce.; 1'01"
her defence.
(38%