T. Senthilkumar vs Indirani

Honourable Mr. Justice P.R. Shiva Kumar

Heard the submissions made by Mr. H. Velavad has, learned counsel for the petitioner. The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed

against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Ramanathapuram, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein seeking an order

to send the disputed cheque to the forensic lab for the opinion of a handwriting expert.

The said petition was filed u/s 243(2) Cr.P.C. The said petition came to be filed, after recording of the evidence adduced on the side of the

complainant was over and the revision petitioner/accused was called upon to enter upon his defence, after being questioned u/s 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon considering the request and the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, came to the

conclusion that the petition was nothing but an attempt to protract the case and the object of the petitioner was vexation and delaying the criminal

proceedings. Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate chose to dismiss the petition.

Impugning the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Ramanathapuram, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a

person accused of an offence is entitled to a fair trial and when the accused is called upon to lead defence evidence to establish his innocence,

opportunity of leading every type of evidence ought to be given and the denial of an opportunity to lead evidence regarding the genuineness of the

document will amount to denial of fair trial.

In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court, in Mrs. Kalyani Baskar

Vs. Mrs. M.S. Sampornam, . Relying on the observations made by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the said case, learned counsel for the petitioner

contends that the signature found in the dishonoured cheque can be proved by the petitioner to be not that of the petitioner and for that purpose,

the petitioner had filed the petition u/s 243(2) Cr.P.C. to send the dishonoured cheque to the forensic lab for the opinion of the expert.

It is also his contention that difference in ink used for filling up the body of the cheque and writing the signature will also go a long way in the

petitioner''s disproving the case of the complainant and for that purpose also, the said prayer was made and that such a prayer was turned down

by the learned Judicial Magistrate, without assigning any sustainable reason.

of course, it is true that the Hon''ble Apex Court in the above judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner made such an observation

that ""''fair trial'' includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove her innocence. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a

valuable right. Denial of that right means denial of fair trial."" But the said case can be differentiated from the one on hand. There, the accused

disputed the signature found in the dishonoured cheque and wanted to establish that the cheque was not issued by her by proving that the signature

found therein was not that of the accused.

In the present case, the petitioner has not made even a murmuring that the signature found in the dishonoured cheque is not that of the petitioner.

In the entire affidavit running to only one page, there is no specific denial of the signature and it has also not been stated any-where in the affidavit

as to the purpose, for which he wants to have the document examined by an expert to find out whether the ink used for filling up the body of the

cheque and for writing the signature are one and the same or different. It is not the case of the petitioner that a blank signed cheque was given with

the specific understanding that the same would be used only as security for any other purpose and the same was filled up latter on by the

complainant. On the other hand, he has simply stated that the ink differs and that has got to be verified by referring the cheque to the forensic lab.

Even in the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon''ble Apex Court has provided an exception by stating that in case the

Magistrate thinks that the object of the petition is vexation or delaying the criminal proceedings, the prayer can be negatived.

Here, in this case, the learned Judicial Magistrate, on proper appreciation, has arrived at a conclusion that the object of the petition is nothing

but vexation and delaying the criminal proceedings. This court finds no defect or infirmity much less illegality in the order passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate.

For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the Criminal Revision Case deserves dismissal in limini. Accordingly,

the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.