Timely action is crucial in invoking evidential rights under the Indian Evidence Act to avoid prejudice in legal proceedings.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 30.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.o.5500 of 2024 in S.T.C. No.2692 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court) at Tiruppur.

2. The petitioner is accused in the complaint in S.T.C. No.2692 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court) at Tiruppur, filed by the respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case is that, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from the respondent on 31.10.2018 and on 11.01.2019 (Rs.5 lakhs respectively) and executed two pro- notes in front of witnesses and thereafter, issued a cheque bearing No.374006 dated 15.05.2019 for Rs.10 lakhs towards repayment of the borrowal amount.

Thereafter, when the respondent presented the said cheque in the bank for collection on 16.05.2019, the said cheque was returned for the reason "funds insufficient". Hence, the respondent issued a legal notice to the petitioner, but the same was returned as "not claimed". Despite knowing about the demand notice, the petitioner neither repaid the cheque amount nor sent any reply and therefore, the respondent filed the complaint in S.T.C. No.2692 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court) at Tiruppur. Though the complaint was filed in the year 2019, P.W.1 was examined only on 21.04.2021 and cross examined after a period of two years on 19.06.2023. After the proceedings under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C, the petitioner/D.W.1 was cross examined on 20.05.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition in C.M.P.No.5500 of 2024 invoking Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to take the disputed signature found in Exs.P.1 and P.2 (Pro-notes) to compare the same with the admitted signature found in Ex.P.3 (cheque) and also found in the proceedings of questioning under Section

251 and 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. The said petition was dismissed by order dated

30.12.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was sent with legal notice by the counsel for the respondent herein under Section 138 of N.I. Act which is a statutory notice and the same was returned as not claimed and despite the knowledge of the demand notice, the petitioner neither sent reply nor repaid the amount. Therefore, the respondent was constrained to file the complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also seen from the records that the petitioner soon after the receipt of the summon from the Magistrate in the complaint, he filed a memo for inspection and even after inspection, he did not take any steps immediately to invoke Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed signatures along with the contemporaneous documents for expert opinion. After a period of four years from the date of filing of the complaint and after a period of two years from the date of completion of complainant's side evidence, the petitioner filed the petition invoking Section 45 Indian Evidence Act.

5. A reading of petition filed by the petitioner before the trial Court under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, shows that the petitioner has not given any reason as to why he did not take any steps immediately on receipt of summons from the Magistrate in the year 2019. The case was pending for four years from 2019. In the year 2024, the petitioner has simply filed the petition denying the signatures found in Exs.P.1 and P.2 and to send the same