IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.02.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

CRL.R.C.NO.900 OF 2014

AND

M.P.NO.1 OF 2014

S.R.Subramaniam

...Petitioner / Complainant

Versus

T.G.Sivakumar

...Respondent / Accused

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and

401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the order

dated 31.07.2014 made in Crl.M.P.No.4365 of 2014 in STC.No.73 of

2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track

Court-II, (Magisterial Level), Erode, and set aside the same by

allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.N.Manokaran

For Respondent

:

M/s.Meenakshi Sundaram

ORDER

This petition has been filed to call for the records

relating to the order dated 31.07.2014 made in Crl.M.P.No.4365

of 2014 in STC.No.73 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Fast Track Court-II, (Magisterial Level), Erode, and

set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.

2. The petitioner herein, who is the complainant in

STC.No.73 of 2011, filed a petition in C.M.P.No.4365 of 2014

under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, to compare the difference

of tint of ink found in the date of Ex.P1 cheque, dated

25.04.2010, with the amount in numerical Rs.15,00,000/-. The

trial Court by the order dated 31.07.2014, dismissed the

petition for the reason that the prayer sought for in that

petition is not clear and also sending the cheque is not proper

since earlier the petitioner had filed CMP.No.3657 of 2013 to

send Ex.P1 cheque and later he withdrew the same.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

respondent/accused has not disputed the issuance of cheque and

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the date inscribed in the cheque. His only dispute is with

regard to the insertion of “1” before Rs.5,00,000/- and made

Rs.15,00,000/-. He further submitted that earlier the accused

filed CMP.No.728 of 2011, praying to send the cheque for

forensic examination to get expert opinion on the material

alteration. The learned Magistrate in his requisition letter,

dated 15.02.2012 sought opinion by comparing “1” which is found

in the amount column and “1” in the date column of the cheque,

however, the authorities wrongly sent a report on 10.04.2012

with an opinion that authorship of writing of numerical “1” in

the amount column cannot be fixed. Thereafter, the Lower Court

on its own, again send the cheque to compare tint of ink between

“1” and "5,00,000" and the Forensic Department gave a report

stating that the tint of ink used to write the red enclosed

numerals “Rs.5,00,000/-” stamped and marked A is different from

the tint of ink used to write the red enclosed numeral “1”

stamped and marked B”, which are found in the amount column.

4. He further submitted that since the respondent/accused

had admitted about the issuance of cheque dated 25.04.2010 and

to check if the same tint of ink was used, it is necessary to

compare “1” in the amount column with the date 25.04.2010 and

for that purpose only, he filed the petition in CMP.No.4635 of

2014 sending for forensic examination. However, the Lower Court

dismissed the same, which would cause great pre-judice to the

petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused submitted

that the petitioner earlier filed a petition under Section 45 of

the Indian Evidence Act, which was later withdrawn. The

respondent himself also filed a petition stating that there was

material alteration in the cheque. The Forensic authorities gave

an opinion that the tint of ink used to write the red enclosed

numerals "5,00,000" is different from the tint used to write the

numeral "1". Hence, it is clear that the petitioner had made a

material alteration in the cheque. Further, in the petition

filed by the petitioner