P.A. Krishnappa vs A. Raghu

G. Chockalingam, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, in Cr.R.P. No. 69 of 2010, dated 18.08.2011, confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thirupathur, Vellore District, in C.M.P. No. 2680 of 2010 in C.C. No. 54 of 2009, dated 16.07.2010. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 54 of 2009 filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petitioner/ accused, his signature in the disputed cheque was fabricated and it is not his signature. Therefore, pending the calendar case, he has filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thirupathur, Vellore District, in C.M.P. No. 2680 of 2010 for comparison of his signature with the disputed cheque in question and to get an opinion from the handwriting expert. The learned Magistrate had dismissed the said petition filed by the petitioner/accused. Against which, the petitioner/accused had preferred a revision before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, in Cr.R.P. No. 69 of 2010. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments of both sides, dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner/accused and confirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thirupathur. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and filed the present criminal original petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that the Courts below have, without application of mind and without following the principles, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/accused. It is further contended that the Courts below have erred in dismissing the petition when the signature contained in the cheque is disputed, the comparison of signature is very useful for trial. Hence, the criminal original petition has to be allowed.

The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant contended that the petitioner/accused has preferred a first revision before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, after hearing the arguments of both sides, dismissed the petition. Hence, the second revision filed by the petitioner/accused is not at all maintainable according to law. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Deepti alias Arati Rai Vs. Akhil Rai and Others, .

Further, the petitioner/accused has filed an affidavit wherein at paragraph No. 3 it is stated as follows:--

Further, in the petition filed by the petitioner/accused he has stated as follows:--

According to the petition filed by the petitioner/accused, he wanted to get an expert opinion by comparing the disputed signature in the cheque with the signature of the accused in this case. It is admitted by both sides that the alleged cheque dated 23.02.2009 was returned from the Bank as "insufficient funds". Further, the only prayer of the petitioner/accused is that he wanted to compare his signature in this case with the signature in the cheque in question, but, he has not produced any admitted signature of his own along with the petition. The only request is to compare his own signature in this case with the signature in the disputed cheque. After coming to know about the filing of the case alone, he put his signature in this case. So, the request of the petitioner/accused for comparing his signature in this case with the disputed signature in the cheque, after the case was filed will not give any fruitful result because after filing of the petition alone, the accused put his signature. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant that since the petitioner preferred a first revision before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore and it was dismissed after hearing both the parties, the second revision is not at all maintainable

In the decision reported in Deepti alias Arati Rai Vs. Akhil Rai and Others, , at paragraph No. 4, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held as follows:--

"4..........The High Court also should have taken care to verify the record before accepting the concession made by the learned Government Advocate. It should have also applied its mind to the aspect that second revision application, after dismissal of the first one by Sessions Court is not maintainable and that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code."

The above said ruling cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the above said ruling, after the dismissal of the first revision by the Sessions Court, the second revision is not at all maintainable and the High Court cannot entertain such a revision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the above legal position, the second revision viz., this criminal original petition is legally not maintainable. Hence, this criminal original petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.