IMPORTANT POINT
In a cheque bounce case where accused denied to have issued the cheque and denied his/her signature on it, his prayer for sending cheque for handwriting expert opinion deserved to be allowed.

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.—By consent, the Criminal Revision Case is taken up for final disposal. The revision petitioner herein is arrayed as accused in C.C.No.72 of 2013, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate/Special Court for exclusive trial of Land grabbing cases, Thoothukudi (Full Additional charge). The said private complaint is filed by the respondent herein seeking the prosecution of the revision petitioner for the alleged commission of offences under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The revision petitioner herein filed Cr.M.P.No.1272 of 2014, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to compare her signature found in the impugned cheque drawn on City Union Bank, Thoothukudi with that of the signature found in the specimen signature in her account bearing No.11041820006566, HDFC Bank, Thoothukudi branch. The said petition, after contest, came to be dismissed on 15.09.2014. Aggrieved by the same, she has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

3. Mr. B.N. Raja Mohamed, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that according to the respondent/private complainant, the said cheque was issued towards the discharge of her debt of Rs.3,00,000/-, borrowed from him and it was drawn on City Union Bank, Thoothukudi branch and immediately after dishonour, a statutory notice dated 16.03.2013 was issued and it was also acknowledged on 18.03.2013, for which her reply notice dated 22.03.2013 was also issued, wherein she took a specific stand that she did not borrow any amount and also she has not signed in the impugned cheque and further that the signature found in the impugned cheque might have been forged by the private complainant. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the light of her stand taken in her reply notice dated 22.03.2013, which came to be known at the earliest point of time, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition and forwarded the cheque for comparison and got the opinion of the Handwriting expert and since it has been failed to do so, prays for interference.

4. Per contra, Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/private complainant would submit that the revision petitioner/accused is taking different stand on different occasions according to her own well and convenience and draw the attention of this Court to the acknowledgement cards dated 18.03.2013 signed by her, for having acknowledged the statutory notice dated 16.03.2013, wherein the signature found in the impugned cheque as well as the said documents tallies with each other. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to her signature found in the reply notice dated 22.03.2013 and would submit that the said signature is different from that of her signature found in the impugned cheque as well as in the acknowledgement cards and in the light of the said fact, the trial Court was right in dismissing the petition and hence, prays for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case.

5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record in the form of typed set of papers filed by both parties.

6. The respondent/private complainant, after dishonour of the cheque, drawn on City Union Bank, Thoothukudi branch, has sent the statutory notice, dated 16.03.2013 to the petitioner and it was acknowledged by her on 18.03.2013 and in response to the statutory notice, the petitioner sent a reply notice dated 22.03.2013, denying the facts of borrowal of any amount and signing of the impugned cheque and took a further stand that the signature found in the impugned cheque might have been forged by the complainant himself. In the reply notice, she has also put her signature.

7. A perusal of the reply notice, dated 22.03.2013, would disclose that the revision petitioner/accused