K.Sundarraj v. M.Selvaraj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 29.09.2016 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Crl.R.C.No.900 of 2016 and Crl.MP.No.6813 of 2016 K.Sundarraj .. Petitioner/Accused Vs.

M.Selvaraj .. Respondent/Complainant Prayer :- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 30.05.2016 made in CMP.No.3907 of 2014 in CC.No.18 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar For Respondent : Mr.N.Umapathi

ORDER

This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated dated 30.05.2016 made in CMP.No.3907 of 2014 in CC.No.18 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the trial Court without considering the fact there is no valid execution of the cheque. and the age of the writing in the cheque is very relevant to decide the issues in hand, the holder of the cheque has no right to fill up the cheque beyond the limitation period, to prove the defence as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases. The trial Court ought to have consider the issuance of cheque by the accused to the complainant alone will not suffice to constitute offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the learned counsel prays to set aside the order of the trial Court and to allow the revision filed by the petitioner. 3.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the available records.

4.In this case, the main contention raised on the side of the revision petitioner is that the disputed cheque was filled by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

accused and the signature was admitted by the accused/revision petitioner. During the course of trial, the present petitioner filed a petition to compare the signature, age of the ink, signature in the cheque and other writings in the cheque and to call for expert opinion. Earlier, the petitioner himself admitted the signature of the cheque, belongs to him. Now, the petitioner is coming with new version disputing that there is difference of ink, signature and other writings of the cheque, which can be apparently seen in the naked eye. The question of sending the disputed cheque to the expert opinion for difference of ink in signature and other writings of the cheque is not all necessary. Further, the learned counsel fairly admitted, that there is no mechanism available in India to find out the age of the Ink, therefore, it is improper on the part of the Court to send the cheque to the forensic department to find out the age of the Ink in the cheque.

5.In view of the the above facts and circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet, upon perusing the documents and after analysing the materials placed before the Court, dismissed the claim of the petitioner/accused in CMP.No.3907 of 2014 in CC.No.18 of 2008 on 30.05.2016. This Court finds there no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court and the same do not warrant any interference by this court.

6.In the result, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar tsh To 1 The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet.

+1cc to M/S. V.Anandhamoorthy, Advocate Sr.56213 Order in Crl.R.C.No.900 of 2016 SCD(CO) RVR 22/10/2016 krd 10/11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/