P.K. Abdul Jalal vs M/S T.K. Basheer And Co And Ors

Petitioner is the 2nd accused in S.T.No. 25 of 2017 and connected cases pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Tirur. The cases originated from complaints filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner and another, alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the complaint it is alleged that the petitioner, in his capacity as a Director of the 1st accused Company, had entered into an agreement with the complainant Company for supply of cement to the concrete mixing unit of the 1st accused Company. The cement was supplied as per the agreement, but the accused failed to pay the price of the cement and the commission agreed upon. The dispute was later resolved and an agreement entered into between the complainant, in terms of which the petitioner acknowledged the liability and issued four cheques towards its discharge. The cheques were dishonoured on presentation due to insufficiency of funds in the accused's account. Thereupon statutory notices, demanding payment of the amount was issued, which also failed to evoke any response and hence complaints were filed. Since the cheques pertained to a common liability between the same parties, the court ordered joint trial. During the course of such trial, the petitioner filed an application seeking to send the cheques for expert opinion regarding the entries therein. The said application stands rejected by Annexure A1 order and hence this Crl.M.C.

The application seeking expert opinion was filed on the premise that, during his cross examination, the complainant had testified that, except the amount in figures and the date, all other entries in the cheque were in his handwriting and that,the amount in figures and the date was written by the petitioner. It is for disproving this fact and thereby establishing the falsity of the case set up by the complainant that the request was made to send the cheques for expert opinion.

The first respondent filed objection contending that the attempt is only to protract the proceedings and that, no dispute having been raised regarding the other entries in the cheque, including the amount entered in words and the signature, no purpose would be served by obtaining expert opinion regarding the date and the amount in figures.

The learned Magistrate accepted the objection raised by the first respondent and dismissed the application finding that, obtaining handwriting experts opinion would in no way help the court to arrive at a just decision in the case.

Sri. N.K.Mohanlal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, assailed the findings in the impugned order, contending that, by dismissing the application the lower court had prevented the petitioner from letting in best evidence. It is contended that the expert opinion would have aided the petitioner in setting up rebuttal evidence.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner had executed Exhibit P14 agreement acknowledging the liability and had entered the particulars of the cheques issued towards discharge of the liability in that document. The petitioner has not disputed his signature in the agreement. Further, the petitioner has not disputed his signature in the cheques or the amount entered in words. Therefore, as rightly found by the learned Magistrate, no purpose would be served by sending the cheques for expert opinion, other than delaying the trial unnecessarily.

In the result, the Crl. M. C. Is dismissed.