.

S. Manikumar, J.

1. In all three criminal revision cases, the common cause of M/s. Sri Gokulam Chit and Finance Company Private Limited, Chennai is that consequent to the dishonour of the cheques issued by the petitioner, complaints were taken on file by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and Fast Track Court No. 2, Egmore, Chennai. During the course of hearing Mr. R. Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all three cases are posted for orders on 18.02.2015.

2. As facts involved in all the revision cases are same and the orders impugned are on the same lines, revision cases are disposed of by a common order. Details of the cases are as follows:-     

3. Material on record discloses that for the dishonour of cheques and after issuing statutory notice, Sri Gokulam Chit and Finance Company Private Limited, Chennai, has filed complaint against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Alongwith the complaint, he has furnished the list of documents and witnesses. Petitioner/accused in the abovesaid cases, has not chosen to send any reply.

4. Before the Court below the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P. No. 2566 of 2013 in C.C. No. 5528 of 2006, Crl.M.P. No. 2567 of 2013 in C.C. No. 5289 of 2006 and Crl.M.P. No. 2568 of 2013 in C.C. No. 6137 of 2006 and prayed for a direction to send the disputed cheques to the Forensic Sciences Department to get an expert opinion with regard to

(1) date in the cheque

(2) amount by letters in cheque

(3) Amount by numbers in Cheque and

(4) period or the date or old signatures in cheque.

5. In respect of the above, the petitioner/accused has contended that the cheques were issued in the year 1999 and 2000 for the chit period. After completing all the chit, Sri Gokulam Chit and Finance Company Private Limited, did not return the cheques, which were given for security purposes. Chit period was also over in 2002 itself. Before the Court below, the petitioner/accused has further contended that the witnesses DW 1 and DW 2, Bank officials examined by him have deposed that there was no transaction after 21.08.2004. But, Complainant, have filled up the date in the cheque in the year 2006 and thus, preferred a false complaint. According to the petitioner, to ascertain the genuineness of the disputed cheques, expert opinion is required and therefore, Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions were filed for the relief stated supra.

6. Sri Gokulam Chit and Finance Company Private Limited, the respondent/complainant has opposed the petitions on the grounds inter alia that cheques were issued for a legal debt and liability in favour of the respondent/complainant and not as security. Complainant has further submitted that even after the receipt of statutory notice there was no reply. Reasons assigned for seeking expert opinion is only for protracting the proceedings. For the abovesaid grounds, prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions.

7. Adverting to the above rival contentions, the Court below has found that statutory notices issued, prior to the filing of the complaint in each cases have not been replied. Even when the petitioner/accused, was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., there was no such plea. Court below has stated that there is no scientific method or expert to find out the age of the ink in the disputed document.

8. Three witnesses on behalf of the petitioner/accused have been examined on 04.07.2012 and 10.09.2012, respectively. Court below has also noticed that since 2002, matter is pending for examination of the defence witnesses. Thus, by observing that after the examination of defence side witnesses in order to protract the trial, Miscellaneous Petitions, have been fil