ORDER

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.

3.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.

4.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.

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

6.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.

7.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.

8.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 2007, that all payments cleared by 1996 has been proved through the documents filed by the accused, that the accounts registers filed, checked by Taxation Authorities, prove that there was no transaction during 1996 and 1997, when the blank documents were handed over, that the pro-notes