Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 10609 Mad
Judgement Date : 20 June, 2022
Crl.R.C.Nos.738 & 749 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.Nos.738 & 749 of 2022
Jayam Traders ... Appellant in both case
Versus
Anbazhagan .. Respondent in both case
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.738 of 2022 : Criminal Revision Petition filed u/s. 397
read with 401 of Cr.P.C to set aside the order of the learned Judicial
Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Namakkal in Crl.M.P.No.411 of 2022 in
C.C.No.464 of 2021 dated 17.05.2022 and allow this Criminal Revision case.
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.749 of 2022 : Criminal Revision Petition filed u/s. 397
read with 401 of Cr.P.C to set aside the order of the learned Judicial
Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Namakkal in Crl.M.P.No.415 of 2022 in
C.C.No.463 of 2021 dated 17.05.2022 and allow this Criminal Revision case.
For Appellant : Mr. M.Mani Gopi
For Respondent : No appearance
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
Crl.R.C.Nos.738 & 749 of 2022
JUDGMENT
These two Criminal Revisions filed by the complainant arising out of the
order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Namakkal
allowing the applications filed by the respondent/accused to compare the
admitted signature with the voucher marked by the complainant and to compare
the admitted signature and the signature in the cheque.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that, the
respondent/accused has filed these applications only to drag on the proceedings
without even a prima facie case.
3. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the material records of this case.
4. Considering the nature of the offence ie., under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the presumption is there as per section
139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in favour of the complainant and the
burden is on the accused to rebut the said presumption and the application filed
by the accused cannot be termed as incorrect. However, the apprehension of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that, this being used as a tool to protract https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.738 & 749 of 2022
the proceedings can be taken care of by giving appropriate direction to expedite
the entire excise.
5. Therefore, I am of the view that the order of the trial Court is
sustainable. This revision is ordered as follows:
(i) The orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila
Court, Namakkal in Crl.M.P.No.415 of 2022 in C.C.No.463 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.No.411 of 2022 in C.C.No.464 of 2021 dated 17.05.2022 are upheld.
(ii) However, there will be a direction to the learned Advocate
Commissioner and to the concerned Deputy Directors or the concerned person
incharge of the Forensic laboratory to expedite the process to complete the
exercise in any event not later than a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
20.06.2022
Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order sma
To
1. Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Namakkal.
2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.738 & 749 of 2022
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
sma
Crl.R.C.Nos.738 & 749 of 2022
20.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!