The refusal to refer the cheques for handwriting verification did not cause prejudice to the defense, as the complaint did not specifically state that the accused filled up the cheque in his own handwriting and the defense had not cross-examined the complainant on this issue.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pleased to set aside the order dated 04.07.2022 made in Cr.M.P.No.903 of 2022 in C.C.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order of the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore dated 04.07.2022 in Cr.M.P.No.903 of 2022 in C.C.No.3 of 2018, in and by which, while partly allowing the application filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, partly the prayer of the petitioner to refer the cheques being Exs.P.135 and P.136, etc., to the handwriting expert to verify whether the cheque is filled up by A6 or not has been denied by the learned trial Court.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that except for denying the said relief, the trial Court has not even given any reasonings. It has not adverted to the contention of the petitioner in this regard and answered the issue. Therefore, he would submit that this is a case for interference by this Court. On merits, he drew the attention of this Court to the complaint given by P.W.26 Kandhasamy. In the said complaint, which is marked as P.133, P.W.26 categorically states as follows:-

3. However, it is the defence of A6 that he did not fill up the cheque and therefore, if only the said cheque is sent to the handwriting expert to compare the writings in the cheque with the admitted writings of the petitioner/A6, the truth will come out and therefore, the rejection of that portion of the prayer results in great prejudice to the defence of the petitioner/A6.

4. I have considered the said submission made by the learned counsel and perused the materials records of this case. The relevant portion of the complaint of P.W.26 is extracted above. In this regard, P.W.26 is cross examined by the petitioner/A6 and the relevant portion reads as follows:-

5. Therefore, the reading of the complaint, even though it states that the accused filled up the cheque and issued it to P.W.26, it does not specifically state that it was filled up by the accused himself in his own handwriting. Secondly, if that is the case of the defence, the defence had not specifically cross examined P.W.26 in this regard as to whether A6 filled up the cheque on his own in his handwriting or he caused it to be filled up by any other third party.

6. That being the case, sending the cheque for verification of the handwriting will not lead the case of the defence anywhere and therefore, it is unnecessary. It goes without saying when it comes to filling up of the Negotiable Instrument, it can be filled up by the accused himself or he can hand it over by causing it to be filled up by any third party or the holder of the cheque may also fill up the cheque himself or by causing any third person to fill it up.

7. In that view of the matter, I do not think that the refusal of the learned trial Court in any way causes prejudice to the defence of the petitioner/A6. Therefore, I am unable to persuade myself to interfere with the order of the learned Special Court, even though learned counsel would vehemently contend that no specific reasons have been assigned by the trial Court.

8. In view there of, finding no merits, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.