Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4526
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Venugopal, J.
S. Mathiazhagan
Versus
M. Selvaraj
Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 333 of 2012 and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2012
Decided On : 6 November 2012
G.R. Swaminathan, for Petitioner G. Marimuthu for Respondents
The accused's right to seek expert opinion on disputed documents and the relevance of expert opinion under the Indian Evidence Act and Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Handwriting Expert - Criminal Revision Petition - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 45; Negotiable Instrument Act, Section 139; Cr.P.C, Section 243 - The court discussed the admissibility of expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, and the accused's right to examine an expert under Section 243 of Cr.P.C. The court emphasized the relevance of expert opinion, the limitations of expert witnesses, and the accused's right to seek expert opinion on disputed documents.
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed a Criminal Revision Petition seeking permission to obtain the opinion of a Handwriting Expert to compare signatures in two documents. The Trial Court had dismissed the petition, stating that the accused had not utilized prior opportunities and had projected the petition with a view to delay the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Trial Court did not commit any impropriety or illegality in dismissing the petition and concluded that the petition lacked merit.
Issues: The main issue was the admissibility of expert opinion to compare signatures in disputed documents and the accused's right to seek expert opinion under Section 243 of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the relevance of expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, and the accused's right to seek expert opinion on disputed documents under Section 243 of Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.
1. The petitioner/accused has focussed the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 16.5.2012 in Cr.M.P. No. 882 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 882 of 2012, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Srivilliputtur.
2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Srivilliputtur, while dismissing the order in Cr.M.P. No. 882 of 2012 on 16.05.2012 in S.T.C. No. 4 of 2012, has among other things observed that “this case rested on Exhibit P-2, Cheque” and further, the petitioner has admitted the signature found in Exhibit P-2, Cheque as one belonging to him. But, he has repudiated that the signature found in Exhibit P-1, Pronte, does not belong to him etc. and resultantly, dismissed the petition, by stating that prior adequate opportunities given to him have not been utilised and subsequently, the evidence has been closed on the side of the respondent/complainant and when the matter stands for evidence being let in on the side of the petitioner/accused, at that point of time, the petitioner has projected the miscellaneous petition malafide with a view to drag on the case proceedings and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.
3. Being dissatisfied with the order of dismissal dated 16.5.2012 in Cr.M.P. No. 882 of 2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, the petitioner/accused, as an aggrieved person, has preferred the present Revision petition before this Court.
4. According to the Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, the Trial Court ought to have allowed Cr.M.P. No. 882 of 2012 filed by the Revision petitioner, for obtaining opinion of Handwriting Expert.
5. It is the contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that there is no acquaintance between the respondent/complainant and the petitioner/accused and the document given to one Jeya Thiruvaror Sambathi to the complainant has been misused under the complaint denies the signature attributed to him in Exhibit P-1, Pronote and therefore, to establish his defence, the petitioner/accused sought comparison of the signature found in Exhibit P-1, Pronote and in Exhibit P-2, Cheque.
6. The Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused strenuously submits that the petitioner/accused has denied his signature found in Exhibit P-1, Pronote dated 18.1.2010 and as a matter of fact, the petitioner/accused in law has a right of defence, which is statutory in nature.
7. Advancing his arguments, the Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contends that in the present case, the petitioner/accused has been disabled from rebutting the presumption raised under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
8. Finally, the Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused projects an argument that the petitioner/accused has been permitted to cross examine the respondent/complainant after the conclusion of examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and due foundation has been let therein and therefore, a request for referring the subject document for examination of Handwriting Expert cannot be denied in the eye of law.
9. Per contra, the Learned counsel for the respondent/Complainant submits that the petitioner/accused has submitted his signature in Exhibit P-2, Cheque dated 10.8.2011 and the petitioner/accused in Cr.M.P. No. 8982 of 2012, in para 1 before the Trial Court has averred that in Exhibit P-1, Pronote dated 18.1.2012, the signature found therein does not belong to him and that the Trial Court, in para 6 of its order in Cr.M.P. No. 882 of 2012, has clearly observed that the petitioner/accused has not denied the signature seen in Exhibit P-1, Pronote does not belong to him, when he has been questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. proceedings and further, the Trial Court has also opined that the petitioner/accused, during his 313 of Cr.P.C. questioning, has clearly answered that he has nothing to state about the case in S.T.C. No. 4 of 2012 and consequently, dismissed the application, which need not be
