Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Venugopal, J.
A. Dhinakar
Versus
I. Kezhson
Crl. R.C. (MD) Nos. 378, 379 and 380 of 2012 and M.P. (MD) Nos. 1, 1 and 1 of 2012
Decided on : 21 November 2012
Indian Evidence Act - Cheque Examination - Section 45-A - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 45-A of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with the examination of a cheque for ascertaining the age of the ink in the signature, other contents in the cheque, and the number of pens used for filling it by an expert of Forensic Science. The court also referred to Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which speaks of presumption, and Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows the court to direct the document to be compared by a handwriting expert. The court emphasized the right of the accused to obtain an expert opinion to rebut the case of the complainant and highlighted the importance of fair trial and the accused's right to present evidence in support of their defense.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner/Accused filed Criminal Revision Cases against the orders of the trial court dismissing the petitions filed under Section 45-A of the Indian Evidence Act to send the cheque for examination by a forensic expert. The petitioner/Accused argued that the trial court had not considered the specific case of the respondent/Complainant and had deprived the accused of fair trial by dismissing the petitions without allowing the accused to substantiate their plea and disprove the case of the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had not committed any impropriety or illegality in dismissing the miscellaneous petitions and concluded that the Criminal Revision Petitions were devoid of merits. The court dismissed the petitions but made it clear that the dismissal would not preclude the parties from raising all factual and legal pleas before the trial court in the pending cases.
Issues: The issues revolved around the accused's right to obtain an expert opinion to rebut the case of the complainant, the fair trial, and the trial court's consideration of the accused's pleas.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the accused's right to obtain an expert opinion to rebut the case of the complainant and highlighted the importance of fair trial and the accused's right to present evidence in support of their defense. The court also noted that the accused had filed the petitions belatedly after taking numerous adjournments, which indicated a delay tactic to protract the proceedings.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petitions were dismissed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were also dismissed. The court directed the trial court to provide adequate opportunities to the parties to raise all factual and legal pleas in the pending cases.
1. The petitioner/Accused has filed Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 378 of 2012 as against the order dated 22.8.2012 in Cr. M.P. No. 45(A) of 2012 in C.C. No. 1 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court) No. II, Nagercoil in dismissing the petition filed under Section 45-A of the Indian Evidence Act to send the cheque for ascertaining the age of the ink in signature, other contents in the cheque and number of pens used for filling in it by an expert of Forensic Science.
2. The petitioner/accused has filed Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 379 of 2012 as against the order dated 22.8.2012 in Cr. M.P. No. 46(A) of 2012 in C.C. No. 2 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court) No. II, Nagercoil in dismissing the petition filed under Section 45-A of the Indian Evidence Act to send the cheque for ascertaining the age of the ink in signature, other contents in the cheque and number of pens used for filling in it by an Expert of Forensic Science.
3. The petitioner/Accused has filed Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 380 of 2012 as against the order dated 22.8.2012 in Cr. M.P. No. 47 of 2012 in C.C. No. 3 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court) No. II, Nagercoil in dismissing the petition filed under Section 45-A of the Indian Evidence Act to send the cheque for ascertaining the age of the ink in signature, other contents in the cheque and number of pens used for filling in it by an expert of Forensic Science.
4. The Learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court) No. II, Nagercoil, while passing the orders in Cr. M.P. Nos. 45(A)/12, 46(A)/12 and 47/12 respectively on 22.8.2012 has inter alia observed that the Petitioner/Accused has been given fair opportunities at the initial stage to raise his pleas mentioned in the petitions praying for the relief of obtaining an opinion of the Hand-Writing Expert in the private complaint and further that he has failed to avail all the fair opportunities in Cr. M.P. No. 47 of 2012 in C.C. No. 3 of 2012 by virtue of an order dated 22.8.2012 without adverting to the scope and ambit of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act having regard to the very evidence of the Respondent viz., P.W.1.
5. It is the further contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Learned Judicial Magistrate has not adverted about the specific case of the respondent/Complainant in his evidence as P.W.1 to the effect that the entire cheque has been filled up and signed by the petitioner with the very same ink in his presence in the year 2009 which has been disputed by the Petitioner. Therefore, in view of the evidence of P.W.1, it is very much necessary to elicit the said fact and the alleged cheque is to be sent for obtaining an expert opinion necessarily.
6. The Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner projects an argument that the petitioner/Accused has not sent any reply to the notice issued by the respondent/Complainant and in Law, mere failure to reply to the notice would not vitiate the defence of the accused, which fact has not been borne in mind by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, while dismissing the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the petitioner.
7. Proceeding further, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court has dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions in question without adverting to the ingredients of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which speaks of presumption, which is a rebuttable one. As such, the petitioner/Accused ought to be provided with sufficient opportunity in order to substantiate his plea and to disprove the case of the respondent/Complainant.
8. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner/Accused brings it to the notice of this Court that necessity for filing of the Criminal Revision Petitions 45(A) of 2012, 46(A) of 2012 and 47 of 2012 have arisen subsequent to the letting in of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and in deed, the said Miscella
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
