The High Court rejected procedural delays in NI Act cases, emphasizing trial efficiency and reaffirming that expert opinions are supplementary, with the ultimate decision resting with the court.
The Kerala High Court Single-Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas addressed multiple criminal petitions challenging the Judicial Magistrate's orders. The Bench noted that repeated and unwarranted requests for expert opinions, especially when an earlier court-directed report exists, are impermissible and constitute a misuse of the judicial process aimed at delaying the trial. It emphasized that expert opinions are supplementary evidence, with the ultimate decision resting on the court's assessment of the overall evidence.
The petitioner, accused in seven complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), sought to challenge three orders issued by the Judicial Magistrate in these cases under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The orders in question were Annexure A8, dismissing the petitioner’s application to send cheques to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory; Annexure A14, denying the application to summon a private handwriting expert and mark certain documents; and Annexure A16, rejecting the application for the complainant to produce specific documents.
The complaints originated from chitty transactions where the petitioner allegedly defaulted on payments and issued cheques that were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Forensic analysis by the State Forensic Science Laboratory affirmed that the cheques bore the petitioner’s signature, despite his claims of forgery. Dissatisfied with the findings, the petitioner requested further analysis by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, which the Magistrate rejected, noting no grounds to discredit the earlier report or examine its expert. The court observed that repeated requests for expert opinions were unwarranted and appeared to aim at delaying the trial.
Similarly, the Magistrate found no merit in summoning the private handwriting expert, whose opinion, obtained without court intervention, lacked substantive evidentiary value. The court emphasized that while private witnesses could be examined by the petitioner, issuing summons was unnecessary given the questionable relevance of the private expert’s report. Regarding Annexure A16, the Magistrate reasoned that the requested documents pertained to an admitted transaction and had no bearing on the petitioner’s defence of discharge.
The High Court upheld the Magistrate’s conclusions, noting that the petitioner’s applications were devoid of bona fides and primarily intended to protract the trial. The court stressed that expert opinions were supplementary and non-conclusive, and decisions on such evidence rested ultimately with the court. Additionally, it recognized a troubling trend of accused individuals exploiting procedural avenues to delay resolution in NI Act cases.
The High Court dismissed the petitions and directed the Magistrate to expedite the trial of all pending complaints to prevent further prejudice to the complainant.
Mr. Varghese C. Kuriakose, Smt. Amritha J., Mr. Kuruvilla Mathew and Mr. Vipin C. Varghese, Advocates represented the Petitioner.
The Public Prosecutor represented the Respondents.
Subscribers can access the Case, including Case Analysis, Ratio Decidendi, Headnotes, Briefs, Case Research, Cited Case Laws, Case Law Cross-references, and the latest updates on Statutes, Notifications, Circulars, Guidelines, Press Releases and more.
Click on the Citation/Link to access these resources
Comments