High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Naseema v. Shareefa - Crl.RC.No.279 of 2005  RD-TN 186 (18 January 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Criminal R.C. No.279 of 2005
Naseema .. Petitioner Vs.
Shareefa .. Respondent Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 06.10.2004 made in Cr.M.P.No.1683 of 2004 in C.C.No.107 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mahe (Sub Judge). For petitioner : Mr.G.Jeremiah
For respondent : Mr.A.Padmanabhan
O R D E R
This Criminal Revision is directed against the order, dated 06.10.2004 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1683 of 2004 in C.C.No.107 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Mahe.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The case was registered on the complaint given by the respondent / complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Crl.M.P.No.1683 of 2004, relating to the impugned order was filed under Section 243 r/w 293 (1) of Cr.P.C, seeking direction to send the Ex.P.1, Cheque for an expert opinion, so as to compare the signature available in the cheque with the admitted signature of the petitioner / accused.
3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it is essential to send the cheque, that was marked as Ex.P.1, for expert opinion to compare the admitted signature of the accused with the signature available in Ex.P.1. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted an unreported order of this Court, passed in Crl.R.C.No.2061 of 2004 and Crl.M.P.Nos.12573 and 12572 of 2004, dated 20.06.2006, whereby this Court allowed the petition, seeking a prayer to send the disputed cheque for handwriting expert with the document containing admitted signature of the petitioner / accused and directed the petitioner therein to deposit necessary charges for summoning the handwriting expert.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the decision cited by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, since as per the facts of the referred case, the petitioner / accused therein had disputed the signature of the cheque, as forged, even in the reply notice to the legal notice, he had disputed the signature available in the cheque, but here in this case, the revision petitioner has not disputed the signature. The learned counsel further referred to the finding of the aforesaid order, available at page number 3 as follows :
" Therefore, the finding of the learned Judicial Magistrate that the plea of forgery is raised for the first time is not correct. "
5. Here in this case, admittedly in Ex.P.4, reply notice, the revision petitioner / accused has admitted the signature, but pleaded that is signed cheque, was being misused for filing the case. Further, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent / complainant, all the prosecution witnesses were examined and after the prosecution evidence was closed, when the case was posted for questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and at that stage, the revision petitioner / accused came forward with the petition, seeking a direction to send the cheque to expert opinion.
6. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner / accused in this case, had admitted the signature available in the cheque, even by his reply notice, the defence raised by the revision petitioner is that his signed blank cheque was misused by the respondent / complainant, for filing the complaint against the petitioner. As the petitioner has admitted the signature available in the cheque, he is estopped from raising a plea to compare the signature available in the cheque with his admitted signature, since there is no necessity for expert opinion.
7. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the plea of the revision petitioner / accused to send the cheque for expert opinion is unwarranted and the petitioner filed the petition belatedly would also establish that it is only a delay tactics to protract the proceedings.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances, I could find no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below in Crl.M.P.No.1683 of 2004 and accordingly, the criminal revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to dispose of the case, according to law, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Mahe (Sub Judge).
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras - 104.z
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.