ORDER :

(K. Natarajan, J.)

Office objections are over-ruled.

2. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, notice to respondent is dispensed with.

3. This petition is filed by the petitioner- accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order of the Trial Court having dismissed the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT and under Section 296 of Cr.P.C. passed in C.C.No.266/2018 dated 20.12.2022.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent filed a case against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and based upon the issuance of cheque and dishonour of cheque, the petitioner appeared and pleaded not guilty and evidence of the complainant is already over. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, he has denied the service of legal notice and also disputed the signatures found on the postal acknowledgment, which was marked as Ex.P8(a). The petitioner has also examined as PW1, by denying the same, it is necessary for the petitioner to prove that the signature on the Ex.P8(a) is not that of the petitioner. Therefore, he has filed an application for referring the signature to the handwriting expert to get the opinion, which came to be dismissed. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, which reveals that especially, the evidence of PW1 and in the cross-examination, the petitioner denied the signature on the postal acknowledgment, which was marked as Ex.P8(a). On the other hand, the accused has also examined as DW1 by denying the signature found on the Ex.P8(a) is not that of the petitioner. Serving the notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and filed a complaint is a crucial document, which clinch the issue. When the accused taken the contention denying the signature and if it is not proved in accordance with law, the defence set up by the petitioner cannot be considered by the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence. Such being the case, it is necessary for the petitioner to prove his contention by referring the disputed and admitted signature of the accused to the handwriting expert for getting opinion in respect of the signature found on Ex.P8(a). The petitioner is also taken a contention that there was a collusion between the postal authorities and the complainant and the signature was forged. Such being the case, it is necessary for the Trial Court to refer the signature of the accused both admitted and disputed signature of the accused to the handwriting expert. However, it should be at the cost of the petitioner - accused.

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The order of the Trial Court dated 20.12.2022 passed on an application filed under Section 296 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of EVIDENCE ACT in C.C.No.266/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Somwarpet is set-aside and the application is allowed.

At the cost of the petitioner - accused, the Trial Court is directed to refer the signatures of the accused to the Truth Lab and obtain experts opinion. The cost should be borne by the petitioner - accused

I.A.No.1/2023 is also disposed of accordingly.