Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2009
  6. /
  7. January

K.M.Krishnan @ Ponnuvel vs R.Subbarayan

Madras High Court|22 June, 2009

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The petitioner herein is an accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with reference to the proceedings in C.C. No.731 of 2003 pending before Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode. At the stage of examination by defence, a petition in Crl.M.P. No.9177 of 2005 came to be filed by the petitioner/accused stating that the cheque in question was not signed by him and that the signature contained therein is not that of his and therefore, the cheque must be sent for receiving opinion from the handwriting expert. After hearing both the parties, by the order impugned, the trial court turned down the request of the petitioner and aggrieved thereby, the present Revision Case has been filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in the reply notice, such a defence has been taken and that if the plea for sending the cheque to receive opinion from the handwriting expert is denied, great hardship would be caused to the petitioner.
3. On perusal of the order passed by the trial court, it could be seen that such a defence was taken at a belated stage and further, the cheque was returned by the Bank for 'insufficient funds' and not on the ground 'difference in signature'. Though such a defence was taken in the reply notice, the petitioner is at liberty to demonstrate the same during the course of trial and, in a matter of this nature, the exercise of obtaining opinion from a document/handwriting expert is not warranted. Moreover, the learned Magistrate himself can compare the disputed signature with the admitted one and come to a logical conclusion one way or the other with the available materials. Therefore, I do not find any valid reason or ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below; accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the stay granted in the Miscellaneous Petition is vacated and the trial court is directed to proceed with the case and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
22.06.2009.
Index : yes / no.
Internet: yes / no.
JI.
R.REGUPATHI, J.
Crl.O.P. No.236/06 22.06.2009
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

K.M.Krishnan @ Ponnuvel vs R.Subbarayan

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
22 June, 2009