Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2657
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.
S. Karthikeyan - Petitioner
Vs
M. Kaniraj - Respondent
Crl. R.C(MD).No.135 of 2017 and CRL.M.P(MD)No.2113 of 2016
Decided On : 14-07-2017
For the Petitioner: M/s. V. Om Prakash.
For the Respondent: M/s. R. Manoharan.
The main legal point established is that in order to compare signatures by a handwriting expert, the petitioner must provide a document containing the admitted signature for comparison.
Headnote:
Handwriting Expert - Comparison of Signatures - The court dismissed the application to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature by a handwriting expert as the petitioner did not file any document containing the admitted signature.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an accused in a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed an application to compare the signature found in a cheque by a handwriting expert. The application was dismissed by the court below due to the petitioner not filing any document containing the admitted signature for comparison.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no illegality or irregularity in the order of the court below and dismissed the Criminal Revision Case. However, the petitioner was given liberty to file a necessary application with a document containing the admitted signature for the trial court to consider.
Issues: The issue was whether the court should allow the comparison of signatures by a handwriting expert when the petitioner did not file any document containing the admitted signature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's failure to provide a document containing the admitted signature for comparison by a handwriting expert.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, but the petitioner was given liberty to file a necessary application with a document containing the admitted signature for the trial court to consider.
1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the dismissal order of the Petitioner's application to compare the signature found in the cheque by a handwriting expert.
2. The Petitioner is an accused in a Criminal case. Earlier, the respondent filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the Petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs.3 lakhs and in order to discharge the above loan, he has issued a cheque and when the same was presented for collection, the said cheque was returned with an endorsement as ''insufficient fund''. After complying with the legal formalities, a complaint has been filed by the respondent and the learned Judicial Magistrate taken cognizance of the crime and issued summons. During trial, since the Petitioner disputed the signature found in the cheque, he had filed an application to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature by an hand-writing expert and that application has been dismissed by the Court below stating that the Petitioner did not file any document containing the admitted signature to enable the Court below to send the same for comparison of an handwriting expert. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed.
3. Even though notice was served on the counsel for the respondent, he has not chosen to appear before this Court either in person or through counsel.
4. I have heard the submissions of Mr. V. Om Prakash, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R. Manoharan, learned counsel for the respondent and considered the materials on record.
5. Admittedly, the Petitioner filed an application seeking to send the cheque for comparison of the signature found in the cheque by a handwriting expert and he did not file any document containing admitted signature enabling the Court below to send the same for comparison to an handwriting expert. Only on that score, the Court below dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner. I find no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Court below warranting interference by this Court.
6. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the Petitioner to file necessary application with document containing the admitted signature of the contemporary period and if such application being filed, the trial Court is directed to consider the said application on merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
