SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 3536

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
M/s. Jambai Hardware Stores, Rep. by its Managing Partner, S. Mohamed Yahiya, Thiruverumbur & Others - Appellant
Versus
Prakash A. Khanna - Respondent
Crl.R.C.(MD). No. 781 of 2022 & Crl.M.P.(MD). No. 9709 of 2022
Decided On : 02-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:N. Mohideen Basha, Advocate.

There is no scientific method to determine the age of the writing or ink, as established in previous decisions.

Headnote:

N.I. Act - Criminal Revision Case - Section 293 of Cr.P.C - The court discussed the relevance of sending documents for expert opinion to determine the age of ink used in signatures found in the documents. The court referred to previous decisions and concluded that there is no scientific method to find out the age of the writing or ink, and dismissed the petition filed by the accused. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, and the Principal District and Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the Criminal Appeal within two months.

Fact of the Case:

The accused were convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and filed a petition seeking orders for forwarding the documents exhibited as evidence to determine the age of the ink used in the signatures. The complainant alleged that the accused issued cheques that were returned dishonoured, leading to the complaint.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there is no scientific method to determine the age of the writing or ink, as established in previous decisions. The petition filed by the accused was dismissed, and the Criminal Revision Petition was also dismissed. The Principal District and Sessions Judge was directed to dispose of the Criminal Appeal within two months.

Issues: The main issue was whether the documents should be sent for expert opinion to determine the age of the ink used in the signatures found in the documents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous decisions and established that there is no scientific method to determine the age of the writing or ink. As a result, the petition filed by the accused was dismissed, and the Criminal Revision Petition was also dismissed.

Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, and the Principal District and Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the Criminal Appeal within two months.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.2 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.1 of 2020, dated 05.04.2022 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli and revise the same.)

1. The Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.2 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.1 of 2020, dated 05.04.2022 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dismissing the petition filed under Section 293 of Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioners are the appellants in Crl.A.No.1 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli and accused in S.T.C.No.201 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirappalli.

3. The respondent is the complainant and he filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichy, after conducting trial, has passed a judgment, dated 25.11.2019, convicting the petitioners/accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced the first accused firm to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and sentenced the accused 2 to 4 to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused have preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.1 of 2020 and the same is pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

5. Pending appeal, the petitioners/accused have filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.2 of 2021 under Section 293 of Cr.P.C. seeking orders for forwarding the documents exhibited as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 to the Nutron Activation Analysis Chemistry Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai for examining the age of the ink used in the signatures found in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 compared with the contents filled up in those documents and for sending of the report.

6. The respondent/complainant has filed a counter statement raising serious objections for granting the relief claimed by the petitioners/accused.

7. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, after enquiry in the above petition in Cr.M.P.No.2 of 2021, has passed the impugned order, dismissing the same. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioners/accused have come forward with the present criminal revision.

8. The case of the complainant is that the accused have approached the complainant for financial help and received Rs.30,00,000/- on 10.10.2005 from the complainant, that after executing promissory notes, the accused were paying interest to the complainant for some time, that after expiry of two years period, since interest were not paid, the complainant insisted for the return of the loan amount along with interest, that the accused have issued cheques in favour of the complainant in order to repay the amounts due, that three cheques were issued by the second accused duly signed by him in the name of the first accused and two other cheques were signed by the fourth accused duly signed by her in the name of her firm, that the complainant had presented the cheques for collection in Union Bank of India on 17.11.2007, that the cheques were returned dishonoured with an endorsement as “funds insufficient”, that the complainant had issued a legal notice on 21.11.2007, that the accused had received the notice and sent a reply notice on 22.12.2007 to the complainant containing false and frivolous allegations and that since the amount due was not paid, the complainant was constrained to lodge the above complaint.

9. The main contention of the petitioners is that the blank pro-notes and cheques issued by the first accused partnership firm related to the borrowings since 1996 and 1997 and they were not at all signed or issued or delivered during 2005 as well as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top