Madras High Court
R.Mahendra vs K.Palaniappan on 21 August, 2023
Crl.R.C.No.1441 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
Crl.RC.No.1441 of 2023
and Crl.MP.No.12520 of 2023
R.Mahendra ... Petitioner
Vs.
K.Palaniappan ... Respondent
Prayer : Criminal revision filed under Section 397 (1) and 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code 1973 to set aside the order dated 15.10.2022
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem in Cr.MP.No.1126
of 2021 in STC.No.121 of 2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Raja Priya for Mr.S.Panneer Selvan
For Respondent : Mr.S.K.Bharath Mohan
ORDER
There is no representation for the revision petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1441 of 2023
2. Challenging the orders passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Salem dated 15.10.2022 in STC.No.121 of 2020, the
present revision has been filed.
3. When the case was posted for admission on 18.08.2023, the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought time to argue the case.
Therefore, the case was posted today. Even today, the learned counsel is
not ready to argue the case.
4. The petitioner is the accused in STC.No.121 of 2010 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem. The respondent/claimant
filed the private complaint under section 200 Cr.PC against the revision
petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of NI Act. During the course
of trial, the petitioner/accused filed a petition under section 45 of the
Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed signature on the cheque along
with his admitted signatures to a forensic lab for comparison. The said
petition was dismissed by the learned trial judge by observing thus -
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1441 of 2023
“6. The petitioner/accused denied the debt, but
admitted the issuance of Cheque and also the accused
categorically admitted in cross examination of PW1 that
the signature in the Ex.P1 was obtained by him. Hence, in
this current cases, the signature in the cheque was not
disputed one. Therefore, it is well settled law, out Hon'ble
Apex Court judgment in very clearly cited that the age of
ink in cheque would not be able to find out and further on
the point of finding difference in handwriting, date, name
and amount in words Section 20 of the Negotiable
Instrument is clear that “either wholly blank or having
written thereon an incomplete Negotiable instrument
thereby giving prima facie authority to the holder thereof to
make or complete”. The person signing in the blank
instrument shall be liable upon the such instrument in the
capacity in which he signed the same to any holder in due
course for such amount.”
5. It is seen from the records that the present petitioner/accused
did not send any reply to the statutory notice issued by the complainant
and did not deny his signature on the cheque.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1441 of 2023
6. In the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by
sending the disputed signature to the forensic lab for getting an expert
opinion. The observation made by the trial Judge is perfectly in order
and both the petition in CMP.No.1126 of 2021 before the Trial Court and
the consequential revision in this Court are filed by the
petitioner/accused only to protract the proceedings.
7. Hence, the present revision is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
21.08.2023
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
tsh
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1441 of 2023
R. HEMALATHA, J.
tsh
Crl.RC.No.1441 of 2023
21.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
