Forgery in chq

i do not know whom u r representing, complainant or accused. But still it is for the accused to prove his signature is forged, the onus lies on him . He can file a petition under section  73 of evidence Act for matching of signature, still he can insist to go for expert opinion under section 45 of evidence act.

sir

    it is from accused side.in trial, plaintiff has denied over writing in cheque.the blank signed was given to 1st person and 2nd person used by making forged enteries.now 1st as well as 2nd party have initiated criminal and civil suit separately.

i wanted to challenge writing in cheque and not sign on chq.thanks

Following recent KERALA HC observations in this matter will help you.

       15. The prosecution shall however, make clear to court, each of the circumstance which      is  relied upon by it, to establish drawing of the cheque by accused. The mere fact   that the cheque produced in court came from possession of complainant alone will not be sufficient to prove execution, even though it may be one of the circumstances. No law allows    the cheque which is produced and marked in court was handed over or delivered to complainant by accused.

The court, at best, can say that the cheque was in possession of complainant. But, under what circumstances it came to his possession is to be stated by complainant. In the absence of   such statement, court cannot proceed on any assumption that it was handed over to complainant by accused.

thanks for appreciable quote.as complainatant is near to close his cross in chef,so before he leaves the i wish to attract following ;

1]half portion is written by complaintant

2]half by his witness

3]both witnesses replying false in cheque writing

                                                                                          hence i want any ruling in crpc -which would compel to exam the writing in chq.thanks

I have stated long back that there are so many orders by Kerala HC, especially by Justice K Hema, that they are must for every defense counsels. It is a very sorry state of affairs (things are improving) that cheque dishonor and even the Hon magistrate draws presumption under S.139, approach any one and they say stay away from cheque bounce and settle. This confusion is further compounded by the word "holder" used in S.139, the people feel that Holder is synonym with possessor  but it  is not in legal parlance, Holder is defined in NI act, so presumption is available to only Holder, that means to become the Holder complainant is required to prove the entitlement, the liability. The law does not state that liability amount is to be disproved by accused (this is incorrect interpretation) from the word go...accused is required to disprove only if complainant first proves himself to be a holder, then only presumption is available to him.

Unfortunately only Kerala HC is following this line, Delhi HC and P&H HC (with due respect) have given absurd ruling, that complainant is not required to prove anything, but things are changing, SC has also not clarified the position with respect to presumption, the way Kerala HC has done, still the recent few orders have clearly stated that complainant is required to prove the liability reasonably. The SC observation that once the signature is admitted then the court has to draw the presumption under S.139 has become the yardstick and kind of being misused, well this only proves that cheque is drawn by accused, but it does not make the complainant holder, so only when cheque execution is proved and complainant proves the entitlement, presumption can be drawn. Very soon life for accused under S.138 will become comfortable.

For your case,

If you are sure that half cheque is written by complainant and half by his witness and they have denied this in there affidavit (stated something else), then your lawyer will ask the suggestive question during cross. They will deny this...

Immediately after that .move an application under S.340 CrPC / Read with S.193IPC and state that they have given false evidence as you recognise their handwriting (if you can get the sample of their handwriting from some other source..well and good). Thats all and see how it unfurls. In one of the cases, accused got the cheque deposit slip (the handwriting on the cheque was matching with the hand writing on the cheque deposit slip), clearly proving that the cheque was filled up from complainant side (which was denied during cross), now the complainant is facing prosecution as initiated under S.340 CrPC/S.193  IPC.

respectable trivedi ji

             i admire very much your to the point clarifictation . may u sir pl qoute the case no -as u mentioned in reply.the qouted case would be surely helpful to me.pl give detail .thanks a lot sir.

As stated that case is under process and is of no probative value for your case. Please note that S.340 CrPC / S.193 IPC can be invoked by you (discuss with your counsel) if any witness has lied on oath. As stated earlier if the cheque is filled up by him and he denies, then he is doomed, he will admit and apologize on the first show cause notice by the Hon court under S.340 CrPC on your application. Just remember after writing something on the paper, you cannot get away by saying you did not write, even if you detach your hand.. Your counsel knows this. Do not get deterred if someone tells you that application under S.340 CrPC can only be filed at the end (or after final argument), it can certainly be filed after the cross examination of any witness, against that witness.

thanks ,complainant has denied  his writing as well as his witnesses. i wanted to submit the application for 1]any proof of consideration[complainant has denied that he did not get any paper for laon]   2] exam from hand writing expert  3 application u/s 340,ipc,ipc 211,471

but my counsel suggest after  u/s 313 statement-only at defence turn--pl suggest.thanks and regards

hawala transaction

sir

     for statement/allegation of complainant--he gave 20lacs in cash and got got chq for 20lacs.he was quizzed about this transaction as hawala, but court refused this question.now where can pray for such illegal transaction ,pl suggest ?