Ni 138

prakash vka (Querist) 13 October 2012 This query is : Resolved
1) I had filled an petition for filling documents giving an copy of the petition to the accused advocate . but I did not gave the copy of documents to the accused advocate .Now is a must that I should gave copy of documents to the accused advocate.please also tell me which section of law deals with the subject.
2)I had filed a civil case for a cheque for Rs 100000/- for which he had given me a cheq of 50000/-also filled an case as per NI 136
a) the accused have come up with a defence say that it was stolen cheq and the cheq was not signed by him The cheq was send for fsl report say that as the questioned item is limited in design And extent and does not contain sufficient identifying handwriting characteristics for a thoroug interse comparison to fix the authorship .In is not possible to express any opinion on the red Questioned signature.
b)the accused in his 313 statment says that the was a transaction between his brother-in law me for reqister for land in 2005. FOr that deal he had gaven me two signed cheq and one pronote and I have stole one black cheq in addition which he has not signed and that cheq was used by me.
The land was reqisteredb on my name in the month of aug 2004. NOT IN 2005 As per accused.In the decreed copy of the suit which I filled during the cross examination he has clearly admitted the fact that he has no case that he has entrusted any blank signed cheques and stamp papers to me it is against the case set up by the defendant in written statement as well as in the chief examination . it is also clear that defendant cannot be believed considering the nature of the accused during the evidence stage .(accused even had denied his signature in vakalath affidavit filed along with written statement and chief examination affidavit is shown to the accused he simply denied the signature found on those documents.I have produced the decreed copy in court but the accused have filed acounter telling that there is an applie in the case so it can not be marked in this court
please send me a hearing note in this case

Follow Query

Report Abuse

V R SHROFF (Expert) 13 October 2012
you filled an petition for filling documents giving an copy of it.

Vakalath sign cannot be denied.

The transaction of 2004-2005, having same series of cheque N., can infer, the chq were from same transaction, and were ol chq, misused by complainant.
Now it all depend o Evidence,
U can use Expert's Opinion to prove the facts.