ms “*5
%s§””¢.y,v§ ri §’%.J3*’$¢£’%.Il”§:?”%»$-$”3§k1§”§’o»§W- 5’M§§’3inZ¥fi”3
2. Petitioner had filed an app1ica_i’f.i:§§¢V:”‘,.”un.c. in1:a:.’-a1.i§….. irsxe;-1-in§7ii’i£:a§_ii% e:pee;u”eAii%%
hearing No. 253129 datcd i’x’r:«’:’ai f’t.i«1’éI1,i_:harifi. ”
writing expert: to dotd:gineV’V._thAV _j’lwi?i’-ring.
alteration in the chaqun,R’i_§§k writing and
other Iacts. Thefiéaa .§f~y;§¢$itiofi§i? is that, in
a span of t:woV munthgf had issued five
cheques and-‘:a31j’.Iqa:3 :55: altoxatinn in the
figure and a1s€a.Vi:ii§::_V is fiiffarent.
of tha chaqua, has
observed thhitg _ its ‘not find any visible
;;;.;tarat.i__ig$:ia in £325′: vvflanifi cheques and the amount in
uwaxziaj and also that data 01′ cheques have
beefii’ person. Hwwar, he finds
fVv’t::ex.’e 5;;-.3 a!__”éiii*.t;erance at’ ink but does not find any
A I .._i_Z’jVj,'{g-,a:.'”s’.’:;::_ t¢..:’vw–.a:i’a1’¢r the chaquas to the Hand writing
W.i9¢titianar is not disputing the signature on than
He has relied on a judgment at the Horvhla
suprama court in 2007(1) Cnmm 136 {BC}. In the
said case, the acctxaad has seriously disputed the
wW»~M”W w*mmWe2 $w~m;m:a W» aawmwmmma ermm &.,.;%w;mm’% my fiflfiflwflkfifififi HWM QWUKX {W mwgmmm Wfiwfi mmm W’; ma%W;”:;’.sram §’*Efié§;a<'¥"§ mam"
. ' ~ iv
an 3 ..
signatures on the cheque. In this the
Humble supram can:-t observes is
dispute as regard ta the signature
required to be given to the
rtturred to the hand-tr;-,it;ng “a:_§§s:t._.5′–‘. éaise,
there is no such allegafiififis arha” ‘case ‘the
cheque is not £i13.§d.__ is blank,
section 20 of the Act, confers
authority on iffiatruutants. no
grounds to ‘
5. dismissad.
Sd/-vs
Iudge