Back
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
C. Sonamuthu
Versus
R. Barsha Beevi
Crl. R.C.(MD). No.435 of 2012
Decided On : 01-02-2013
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION - SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT - MATERIAL ALTERATION - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - EXPERT OPINION - RELEVANCE AND ADMISSIBILITY - PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING EXPERT OPINION - JUDICIAL DISCRETION - FAIR TRIAL - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - DUTY OF THE COURT TO ENSURE FAIR AND PROPER TRIAL - PROTECTION OF ACCUSED'S RIGHTS - INTEGRITY AND SANCTITY OF CONTRACTS - PREVENTION OF FRAUD AND TAMPERING WITH WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS - HOLDER IN DUE COURSE - CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS - PRESUMPTIONS AND BURDEN OF PROOF - MATERIAL ALTERATIONS - CONSEQUENCES AND EFFECTS - VOID INSTRUMENTS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY - SECTION 87 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT - APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE - MATERIAL ALTERATIONS RENDER INSTRUMENTS VOID - CRIMINAL PROSECUTION NOT MAINTAINABLE - SECTION 243(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - MAGISTRATE'S POWER TO DIRECT SENDING OF DOCUMENTS FOR COMPARISON BY HANDWRITING EXPERT - FAIR TRIAL AND OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT CASE - SECTION 45 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - RELEVANCE OF EXPERT OPINION - SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION - DISCRETION OF THE COURT - NECESSITY FOR EXPERTISE AND RELEVANCE TO CONTROVERSY - AGE OF WRITINGS ON DOCUMENTS - SCIENTIFIC METHODS AND EXPERTISE - LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES - FORENSIC SCIENCE DEPARTMENT'S STATEMENT ON INABILITY TO DETERMINE AGE OF WRITINGS - JUDICIAL NOTICE - INTEGRITY AND SANCTITY OF CONTRACTS - PREVENTION OF FRAUD AND TAMPERING WITH WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS - MATERIAL ALTERATION - DEFINITION AND SCOPE - HOLDER IN DUE COURSE - CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS - PRESUMPTIONS AND BURDEN OF PROOF - MATERIAL ALTERATIONS - CONSEQUENCES AND EFFECTS - VOID INSTRUMENTS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY - SECTION 87 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT - APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE - MATERIAL ALTERATIONS RENDER INSTRUMENTS VOID - CRIMINAL PROSECUTION NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner, who is the complainant in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed a criminal revision petition challenging the trial court's order directing the sending of a cheque for examination by a handwriting expert. The respondent/accused had claimed that the cheque was materially altered, with the figure of Rs.50,000/- changed to Rs.5,50,000/- and other blanks filled up by the complainant. The trial court had allowed the accused's petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to obtain an expert opinion on the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court's order was not illegal or infirm. It observed that the accused had taken a specific stand that the cheque was materially altered, and that she had a valuable right to prove her case in accordance with law. The court also noted that the trial court had exercised its discretion under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the sending of the cheque for examination by a handwriting expert, in order to ensure a fair trial and provide the accused with an opportunity to rebut the complainant's case. The court further held that there was no scientific method available to determine the age of writings on documents, and that sending documents for such an opinion would be futile. It also emphasized the importance of preserving the integrity and sanctity of contracts and preventing fraud and tampering with written instruments.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in directing the sending of the cheque for examination by a handwriting expert, despite the accused's admission of his signature? 2. Whether the accused had a right to prove her case and rebut the complainant's allegations of material alteration? 3. Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure? 4. Whether there is a scientific method available to determine the age of writings on documents? 5. Whether sending documents for an opinion on the age of writings would be futile?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The trial court did not err in directing the sending of the cheque for examination by a handwriting expert, as the accused had taken a specific stand that the cheque was materially altered and had a valuable right to prove her case in accordance with law. 2. The accused had a right to prove her case and rebut the complainant's allegations of material alteration, and the trial court's order provided her with an opportunity to do so. 3. The trial court properly exercised its discretion under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it was necessary to ensure a fair trial and provide the accused with an opportunity to rebut the complainant's case. 4. There is no scientific method available to determine the age of writings on documents, and sending documents for such an opinion would be futile.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed, and the trial court's order directing the sending of the cheque for examination by a handwriting expert was confirmed. The trial court was directed to complete the full trial of the case within a period of five months from the date of receipt of the order.
1. The Revision petitioner/complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 03.07.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.526 of 2012 in C.C.No.239 of 2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track No.I), Nagercoil.
2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil (FTC-I) while passing the impugned order dated 03.07.2012 in Cr.M.P.No.526 of 2012 in C.C.No.239 of 2012 has interalia observed that the writing of Rs.50,000/-in figure, in Ex.P.1 cheque, to find out whether the signature is similar in the cheque and other details namely, whether the numerical number 5 and other letters are different once, an opportunity is to be provided to the accused to find out the genuineness of the same, in the interest of justice and consequently ordered sending of Ex.P.1 cheque to be examined by a hand writing expert and for obtaining his report.
3. That a part, the trial Court has ordered that an examination report is to be filed by finding of as to whether the numerical letter of Rs.50,000/-in Ex.P.1 cheque has been written with signature in the same ink and also further to ascertain whether the numerical Number 5 seen in the details of Rs.50,000/-has been written and other details in the same ink and also to find out whether the numerical Number 5 has been added subsequently before the figure of Rs.50,000/- and resultantly allowed the miscellaneous petition.
4. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.526 of 2012 in C.C.No.239 of 2012, the revision petitioner/complainant has fixed the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court as an aggrieved person.
5. According to the Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner/complainant the impugned order dated 03.07.2012 passed by the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.526 of 2012 in C.C.No.239 of 2012 in directing Ex.P.1 cheque signature being sent for examination of a hand writing expert etc., is an invalid and illegal one in the eye of law.
6. The Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner/complainant urges before this Court that the trial Court without application of mind has not considered the petitioner's plea that the respondent/accused has accepted his signature and denied the amount in the figures only and not the amount written in words. Furthermore, it is the stand of the revision petitioner/complainant that in the present case there is no dispute as to the amount written in the words and therefore, there is no necessity to obtain an expert opinion.
7. Yet another argument of the learned counsel for the revision petition/complainant is that the trial Court has not taken into account of the fact that the respondent/accused has accepted his signature and therefore, passing of the consideration of the amount mentioned in the cheque is to be decided at the time of final hearing of the case.
8. The Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant brings to the notice of this Court that the petition Crl.M.P.No.526 of 2012 has been pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate/FTC No.I, Nagercoil in C.C.No.239 of 2012 that the respondent/accused has contested his case without raising any objection and only when main case has been transferred to the Fast Track No.I/Judicial Magistrate Nagercoil in C.C.No.239 of 2012, a petition to obtain an expert opinion under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been filed by the respondent/accused and that too with an ulterior motive, after a lapse of more than 1 ½ years,clearly with a view to delay and procrastinate the trial proceedings.
9. Lastly, the Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner/complainant that on 10.09.2011, the respondent/accused has issued a notice to the petitioner/complainant and stated that he is ready to compromise with a revision petitioner herein and his efforts have entered in to vein and after his efforts proved futile then only, the respondent/accused has been proposed to file a petition under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, for send
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
