The need for expeditious trial proceedings and the prohibition of delaying tactics in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The petitioner herein is an accused in C.C.No.4186 of 2007 against whom a private complaint has been filed by the respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner herein had filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2208 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, praying to send the cheque, which was marked as Ex.P.1, to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of the signature found in the cheque-Ex.P.1 with the specimen signature. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that no counter was filed by the complainant for the petition filed by the petitioner. In spite of that, the learned Magistrate had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to prove his defence and dismissal of the petition has caused prejudice to the petitioner/accused.

3. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

4. The case was filed against the petitioner in the year 2007 and the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and the prosecution evidence also had been closed and thereafter, the accused was also questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 03.04.2008. Till then the petitioner has not denied his signature found in the cheque-Ex.P.1. Though the petitioner had received the legal notice-Ex.P.3 sent by the complainant, he had not replied for the same. Nearly after one year and three months after the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has chosen to file an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The docket entries available with this Court show that the case had been in the stage of defence itself for more than a year. This Court is unable to understand as to why and how the case was pending for more than a year.

5. To expedite the trial proceedings for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, amendments were made in the year 2002 by inserting Sections 143 to 147 in the said Act, which were brought into effect from 06.02.2003. As per Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial has to be conducted as expeditiously as possible and further it has to be posted from day-to-day until its conclusion, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing. In spite of the specific provision, this particular case had been pending before the Trial Court at the defence stage itself for more than a year. It is very clear that the accused is making attempts to prolong the trial, which cannot be permitted. If the accused is allowed to play the delaying tactics, then it would defeat the very purpose of the amendments brought into the Act.

6. The reasons given by the Trial Court for dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner are acceptable. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.2208 of 2009 in C.C.No.4186 of 2007. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.