IMPORTANT POINTS
The Court being the master of the proceedings, must determine as to whether the application filed by the accused is bona fide or not or whether thereby he intends to bring on record a relevant material. It has also been held that, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the accused should not be allowed to unnecessarily protract the trial.

ORDER :

The petitioner is the complainant in the case C.C.No.7231/2016 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (N.I.Act Cases), Ernakulam.

2. The petitioner is a partnership firm. The aforesaid case is one instituted by the petitioner against respondents 1 to 5, another partnership firm and its partners, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

3. The petitioner is the dealer of air conditioners. It is alleged that the accused had placed work order for installation of air conditioners and that in partial discharge of the amount due to the petitioner, the accused issued a cheque dated 20.08.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/-in favour of the petitioner. On dishonour of the cheque, the petitioner has initiated proceedings against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

4. When the case was posted for defence evidence, respondents 1 to 5/accused filed an application as Crl.M.P.No.8826/2019 in the trial court praying that the cheque may be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for getting opinion of an expert regarding the signature therein. The petitioner raised stiff objection but the trial court allowed the application as per Annexure-I order. The aforesaid order is challenged in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents 1 to 5.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the accused had earlier admitted issuing of the cheque but their plea was only that it was not issued to the petitioner firm but to another firm. Learned counsel also contended that, in the reply notice sent by the accused, they had no case that the cheque did not bear the signature of the managing partner of the accused firm. Learned counsel would submit that the attempt of the accused is only to somehow protract the proceedings in the trial court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 would contend that, during the cross examination of the complainant, the signature in the cheque was specifically denied by the accused. Learned counsel has contended that an accused has got every right to adduce evidence to disprove the prosecution case.

8. During the trial of the case, the managing partner of the complainant firm was examined as PW1. During the cross examination, he categorically stated that Vijayakumar (who is the second accused and who is the managing partner of the first accused firm) signed the cheque in his presence and gave it to him on 20.08.2016 at Thiruvananthapuram. A suggestion was made to PW1 that the signature in the cheque is not of Vijayakumar and that the signature in the cheque was put by PW1. PW1 denied this suggestion made to him in the cross-examination. It was on the basis of this evidence given by PW1 that the application for sending the cheque to obtain expert opinion regarding the signature therein was made by the accused.

9. The trial court allowed the prayer made by the accused, without adverting to any other circumstances of the case, but merely relying on a bald suggestion made to PW1 during the cross-examination, disputing the signature in the cheque.

10. Annexure-D (marked as Ext.P5 in the case) is the copy of the e-mail sent by the complainant firm to the accused firm on 11.08.2016 requesting payment of money. Annexure-E (marked as Ext.P6 in the case) is the copy of the e-mail sent by the accused firm to the complainant firm stating that cheque for Rs. 5,00,000/- had been issued in favour of the firm 'Cools, Calicut”. Annexure-F (marked as Ext.P7 in the case) is the copy of the e-mail sent by the complainant firm to the accused firm on 11.08.2016 requesting issuance of the cheque in the name of the complainant firm. Annexure-G (marked as Ext.P8 in the case) is the copy of the e-mail sent by the accused firm to the complainant firm on 19.08.2016 requesting postponement of the presentation of the cheque in the bank.

11