The admissibility of certified copies of specimen signatures from the Bank under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, and the power of the courts to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

ORDER :

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C’ for convenience) to set aside the order in Unnumbered Criminal Revision Petition of 2023 dated 06.07.2023 on the files of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the order in C.M.P. 3842/2023 in C.C. No.2375/2019 dated 20.06.2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XII, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No.2375/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XII, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/original complainant.

3. I would like to refer the parties in this Crl.M.C as 'accused' and 'complainant', for convenience.

4. As on 06.12.2022, the complainant in C.C. No.2375/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XII, Thiruvananthapuram had approached this Court and filed petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India vide O.P. (Crl) No.675/2022 and sought direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XII, Thiruvananthapuram to dispose of the said case within the time frame fixed by this Court.

5. As per the judgment dated 04.01.2023, this Court directed the learned Magistrate to dispose of C.C. No.2375/2019, within a period of seven months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate tried the matter and recorded evidence of the complainant as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P11. On completion of the complainant’s evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and he filed a statement also.

6. At this stage, the petitioner herein, who is the sole accused, filed C.M.P. No.3843/2023 before the trial court under Section 45 read with 75 of the Indian Evidence Act, to forward Exts.P1 and P2 cheques, Exts.P9 and P10 acknowledgment cards and Ext.P11 reply notice allegedly sent by him to get FSL report on raising contention that the signatures therein were not that of the accused.

7. The learned Magistrate, as per the order dated 20.06.2023, addressed the contention and found that on comparison of the signatures in Exts.P1, P2, P9, P10 and P11, the same appeared to be similar and therefore no useful purpose could be achieved by sending those documents for expert opinion. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

8. Though, revision petition filed before the Sessions Court challenging the order dated 20.06.2023 in C.M.P. No.3843/2023 in C.C. No.2375/2019, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision on the ground that the revision petition was not maintainable against the said order.

9. It is interesting to note that the accused herein disputes his signatures in Exts.P1 and P2 cheques alleged to be issued by him to discharge the liability to the complainant. At the same time, he also disputes signatures in the acknowledgment cards, Exts.P9 and P10 and his own reply notice produced as Ext.P11.

10. It is relevant to note that in the complaint itself the complainant averred that on receipt of notice on 07.11.2019, the accused issued reply notice on 15.11.2019 undertaking that he would repay the amount by paying Rs.50,000/-each on every Wednesday through NEFT bank account. It is surprising to see that the accused, who accepted the legal notice and who issued reply notice, now disputes the reply notice and the signature therein also.

11. On perusal of the copy of Ext.P11 reply notice, it was addressed to Adv. Santi George, who issued the legal notice of demand to the accused and the accused admitted payment as contended in the complaint as extracted herein above. In order to address the merit of the contention as regards to denial of issuance of reply notice and signatures in Exts.P1, P2, P9, P10 and P11, I have perused the copies of the said documents placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on n