Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1534 (MAD)

K. Santhi v. Sry Emu Farms

2021-04-28

TEEKAA RAMAN

body2021
ORDER : COMMON PRAYER: These Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records and set-aside the order passed in CMP.No.2217 & 2218 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-Fast Track Court at Thiruchengode on 09.07.2015. The private complainant is the revision petitioner in both the petitions. 2(a).The revision petitioner has instituted a case in STC.Nos.215 & 2016 of 2013 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C read with Sections 138 & 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act – 1881, for the dishonour of the Cheque Nos.304896 & 304895, dated 17.12.2012, said to have been issued by the second respondent herein on behalf of the first respondent herein/Company. 2(b).During the cross examination of PW1, the signature found in the impugned cheques was challenged and hence, the private complainant has filed the petitions in CMP.Nos.2217 & 2218 of 2015, before the Judicial Magistrate – Fast Track Court, Tiruchengode, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to refer the disputed signature found in the impugned cheques to the hand writing expert attached to the Tamilnadu Forensic Department of Madras to compare the disputed signature found in the cheques along with the admitted signature of the second respondent/ Managing Director of the first respondent herein/Company, in order to get the expert opinion and the learned Judge has dismissed the same. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that a new plea has been raised by the revision petitioner only at the belated stage and furthermore, the cheque was issued by M/s.SRY EMU FARMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, whereas, the first respondent name is different. 5. According to the learned counsel for the respondent the answers have been elicited in the cross examination of PW1. After perusing the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate – Fast Track Court, Tiruchengode, in CMP.Nos. 5. According to the learned counsel for the respondent the answers have been elicited in the cross examination of PW1. After perusing the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate – Fast Track Court, Tiruchengode, in CMP.Nos. 2217 & 2218 of 2015, it appears that the learned Magistrate has passed the orders without reference to the subject matter of the petitions and the prayer mentioned in the petitions now that the first respondent has taken a plea that the signature found in the cheque is not the same and signature being disputed, it is necessary to have comparison of signatures by an expert opinion from the Government Forensic Department as to the plea that M/s.SRY EMU FARMS and SRY EMU FARMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, it is for the Trial Judge to decide the matter. 6. In view of the specific stand taken by the first respondent viz., to get expert opinion from the Government Forensic Department with regard the signatures found in the disputed cheques, this Court finds that these petitions are ought to have allowed. 7.Accordingly, these Criminal Revision Cases are allowed and the orders dated 09.07.2015, passed in CMP.Nos.2217 & 2218 of 2015, by the learned Judicial Magistrate – Fast Track Court, Tiruchengode, are set aside. The learned Judicial Magistrate – Fast Track Court, Tiruchengode, is directed to send the cheques for comparison to the Government Forensic Department, along with contemporary documents filed by the complainant within a period of six weeks with the earliest possible time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.