K.J. Duraisamy vs O.M. Pandurangan

R. Regupathi, J.—The petitioner has filed the revision petition, with a petition to condone the delay of 22 days, against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Erode in C.C. No. 543 of 2007 dated 12.9.2008.

The petitioner is an accused for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the trial Court.

Pending trial, at the defence stage, invoking Section 45 of the Evidence Act, a petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused to send the cheque, in question, for comparing the handwriting, which was found on the face of the cheque. By the order impugned, it was declined and aggrieved against that, the present revision has been preferred before this Court.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that though the signature made in the cheque has been admitted, the contents of the same have been filled up to suit the convenience of the complainant and therefore to rebut the presumption, the cheque, in question, must be sent to a handwriting expert.

It is the contention of the complainant that the cheque was delivered on 12.5.2007 when the accused came to the house of the complainant with a person and the said person filled up the cheque and the same was signed by the accused.

It is a matter for trial and even if there is any contradiction in the contention made by the complainant, the same could be adjudicated at the time of trial.

Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit to condone the delay. Hence M.P. No. 1 of 2009 stands dismissed. Consequently, criminal revision stands rejected.