The presumption of a legally enforceable debt arises when the accused admits their signature on a cheque, and the court may deny expert opinion if the issue can be sufficiently resolved through testimonial evidence.

ORDER

1. Since the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself and in view of the order to be passed in this petition, notice to the Respondent is dispensed with.

2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner to set aside the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.12 of 2025 in S.T.C.No.862 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Sivakasi.

3. The facts of the case in a nutshell, led to filing of this Criminal Revision Petition and necessary for disposal of the same, are as follows:-

(a)The Respondent/Complainant Company is carrying on the business of offset printing at Sivakasi. The Revision Petitioner/ accused is one of the Directors of M/s.TES & CORC Printing and Publishing Company. The Revision Petitioner had been doing business with the Respondent/complainant. The Revision Petitioner Company had fallen due to the tune of Rs.1.44 crores and odd as on 18.03.2015. (b)On 25.03.2015 and 12.05.2017, the Revision Petitioner/ accused along with her husband, being Directors of the said Company, had executed an acknowledgment of liability in non judicial stamp paper. In order to discharge the above said due, the Revision Petitioner had issued a cheque, bearing No.014097, dated 29.08.2018 for Rs.1,00,00,000/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Rishimangalam Branch, in favour of the complainant towards part payment.

(c)When the said cheque was presented for encashment on 30.08.2018, it was dishonoured with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Hence, the Respondent/ complainant had sent a legal notice, dated 19.09.2019 to the Revision Petitioner, demanding to pay the cheque amount within 04.10.2018. Since there was no response from the Revision Petitioner/ accused, the Respondent/ complainant had filed a complaint in STC.No.862 of 2019 before the Trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for recovery of the cheque amount.

(d)At the stage when the evidence of both sides was completed and when the case was pending for arguments, the Revision Petitioner/ accused had filed Cr.MP.No.12 of 2025 under Section 39 of the Bharathiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam, 2023, before the Trial Court, seeking to send Ex.D1, sale agreement, dated 17.06.2014 to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, for examining the disputed signature of the complainant contained therein with the admitted signature of the complainant found in the vakalatnama. By the impugned order, the Trial Court had dismissed the said petition, seeking to send the documents for expert opinion. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner/ accused.

(e)The signature of the Revision Petitioner/ accused on the cheque, bearing No.014097, dated 29.08.2018 for Rs.1,00,00,000/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Rishimangalam Branch, issued by the Revision Petitioner/ accused, in favour of the Respondent/ complainant towards part payment was not denied.

4. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by, Mrs.T.Seeni Syed Amma, the learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and also perused the materials placed on record.

5. According to the Revision Petitioner/ accused, during the cross examination, the Respondent/ complainant denied his signature found on the said sale agreement, dated 17.06.2014 and hence, to prove that the signature in the said document is that of the Respondent/ complainant, both the sale agreement and the vakalatnama of the Respondent/ complainant should