G. SOMESHWAR RAO versus SAMINENI NAGESHWAR RAO & ANR. ETC.

G. SOMESHWAR RAO versus SAMINENI NAGESHWAR RAO & ANR. ETC.

The right of the accused to seek examination of disputed documents by handwriting expert is not absolute under Section 243(2) CrPC, and cannot be exercised to delay proceedings. Successive applications for the same purpose are not maintainable. Nonetheless, accused may be granted reasonable opportunity to examine his own expert at his own cost, at the discretion of the court.

Parties
Appellant: G. Someshwar Rao; Respondent No. 1: Samineni Nageshwar Rao; Respondent No. 2: Respondent No. 2
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Dismissing Revision Against Trial Court's Rejection of Accused's Application to Send Documents to Handwriting Expert
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with directions
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Trial, Examination of Disputed Documents, Delay in Proceedings, Evidence by Handwriting Expert
Criminal Law Right to Fair Trial Examination of Disputed Documents Delay in Proceedings Evidence by Handwriting Expert

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. Someshwar Rao

Appellant

Samineni Nageshwar Rao

Respondent No. 1

Respondent No. 2

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Dismissing Revision Against Trial Court's Rejection of Accused's Application to Send Documents to Handwriting Expert

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused is entitled to examination of disputed documents (cheque and pronote) by a handwriting expert under Section 243(2) CrPC to ensure fair trial
  2. 2 Whether successive applications for sending documents to expert are maintainable

Ratio Decidendi

The right of the accused to seek examination of disputed documents by handwriting expert is not absolute under Section 243(2) CrPC, and cannot be exercised to delay proceedings. Successive applications for the same purpose are not maintainable. Nonetheless, accused may be granted reasonable opportunity to examine his own expert at his own cost, at the discretion of the court.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with directions

Orders

  • Appellant may examine an expert at his own cost; opportunity to examine disputed documents, submit report, and examine himself as witness preferably on same date; application to be made within six weeks