The main legal point established is the right of the accused to adduce evidence and the burden on the accused to establish that the cheque was not issued for a debt or liability.

1. The petitioner/accused has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 27.9.2012 in Cr. M.P. No. 1728 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 32 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Srivilliputhur.

2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Srivilliputhur, while passing the orders in Cr. M.P. No. 1728 of 2012 on 27.9.2012 has among things observed that “on the side of the respondent/complainant, evidence has been completed and also when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and posted for the evidence of opposite side (Accused side) at that point of time, the present Miscellaneous Petition has been filed with a view to delay the proceedings and resultantly dismissed the Petition holding that it is not maintainable.”

3. According to the Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, the order of the trial Court in Cr. M.P. No. 1728 of 2012 dated 27.9.2012 is against law, weight of evidence and all probabilities of the case.

4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused urges before this Court that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the available materials on record in proper and real perspective.

5. It is the submission of the Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the trial Court has failed to consider the statement of P.W.2 during his cross-examination that cheques bearing Nos. 536501 to 536620 have been issued on 30.10.2000 and the account was closed on 28.11.2000 and the disputed cheque number is 536619.

6. Yet another plea taken on behalf of the petitioner/accused is that P.W.2 has deposed that two different inks have been used in the cheque, but this vital aspect has not been looked into by the trial Court. Also, it is the stand of the petitioner/accused that the trial Court has failed to consider that if the age of the ink is determined by scientific investigation, the truth will come out.

7. Expatiating his contentions, the Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contends that the trial Court has failed to consider an important fact that the petitioner/accused has given the cheque in issue before ten years to one Ponnuchamy (friend of the petitioner). However, the said Ponnuchamy died six years ago, which fact is admitted by the respondent/complainant.

8. Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the signature and the amount in numbers have been written in one ink which looks old and other portions of the cheque have been filled up in another ink which bears a look as if it is newly written.

9. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned counsel for the respondent/accused that the trial Court has analysed the entire gamut of the matter by taking into account the relevant facts and circumstances in an attended fashion and has consequently held that on the side of the respondent/complainant, evidence has been completed and also questioning has been done under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and when the matter has been posted for adducing evidence on the side of the petitioner/accused at that point of time, the petitioner/accused has filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition mainly with a view to delay the proceedings and ultimately dismissed the petition as not maintainable which need not be interfered with by this Court at this distance point of time.

10. The Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner/accused filed Cr. M.P. No. 1728 of 2012 (under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) seeking permission of the trial Court to send the cheque for examination to be done by the Forensic Expert in order to find out whether the words “Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Five thousand only” and the figure “Rs. 1,25,000/-” and also the signature found at the bottom of the cheque have been written in one ink and also whether the date “5.2.2012” and “R.Ganesan” have been written in different ink etc.

11