IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 21.06.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.R.C.No.994 of 2024 in Crl.MP.No.8404 of 2024

1. Anuragah Poultries & Breeders Private Limited, Rep. By its Director K.Kothandapandi Having Office at No.77, Dhall Road, Senthoor Complex, Udumalpet.

2. Kothandapani ...Petitioners Vs.

S.K.Balavasantha Kumar ...Respondent Prayer: This Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to allow the revision with costs by reversing and setting aside the order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.I, Udumalpet in Crl.MP.No6244 of 2023 in CC.No.172 of 2016.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sivaji For Respondent : No appearance

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.I, Udumalpet in Crl.MP.No6244 of 2023 in CC.No.172 of 2016.

2. The petitioner has filed a private complaint against the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Udumalaipet. After completing legal formalities, the complaint was taken on file in C.C.No.172 of 2016. In the said case, the respondent/accused filed a petition in C.M.P.No.6244 of 2023 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, seeking to send the original cheque/Ex.P1 to the Handwriting Expert, Forensic Lab, to obtain the Expert Opinion. The trial Court, after giving due opportunities to both the parties, had dismissed the petition vide order dated 05.04.2024.

3. Aggrieved against the above said order, the petitioner/ accused has preferred this present criminal revision before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the petitioner has not issued any cheque in favour of the respondent. Signature found in the instrument was not that of the petitioner. If the cheque is sent for examination by hand writing expert, to be compared with admitted signature of the petitioner found in transfer certificate, genuineness of the signature found in the cheques could be ascertained. However, the learned Magistrate has not considered the plea taken by the petitioner and dismissed the petition. Hence, the impugned orders need interference by this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. After carefully considering the overall aspects of the case in hand, this Court does not find that the comparison of the handwriting expert on the cheque will be prejudicial to the respondent and the same, in any manner, will delay the proceedings. The learned Trial Court, by not sending the cheque for opinion of the handwriting expert, has diminished the valuable right of the petitioner to rebut the same. This Court, keeping in eye over the fact that "fair trial" encapsulates valuable right of fair and proper opportunities allowed by the Court to adduce evidence in support of defense and denial of that right indeed is denial of fair trial, deems it fit to allow the present petition.

7. Thus, in view of the above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the application of the petitioner, seeking opinion of the handwriting expert, pertaining to the writing on the cheque, is also allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

21.06.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yest/No Speaking order/Non speaking order rli To The Judicial Magistrate, Court No.I, Udumalpet.

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

rli Crl.R.C.No.994 of 2024

21.06.2024