IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R. MALA Crl.R.C.No.546 of 2009 1.M/S.Velavan Engineering Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Ramasamy Post Box No.10 Mahathma Gandhi Street Okkiam, Thuraipakkam. 2.Ramasamy .. Petitioners/Accused ..Vs.. V.Karthikeyan .. Respondent/Complainant Prayer:This Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crl.M.P.2832 of 2007 in C.C.No.311/2006 dated 01.08.2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur and set aside the same. For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent : Mr.V.Illanchezhian O R D E R
This revision has been filed against the dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.2832 of 2007 in C.C.No.311 of 2006 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act.
2.The petition in C.C.No.311 of 2006 was filed by the respondent/complainant herein, for sending the cheques for opinion of Handwriting Expert and the same was dismissed, against which, the petitioners/accused herein have filed Crl.M.P.No.2832 of 2007 stating that in Ex.P1-cheque, the year 2005 was altered into 2006. Hence, they wanted to send the same to Handwriting expert’s opinion. Refuting the same, the respondent/complainant herein stating that to delay the proceedings, the revision petitioners/accused come forward with such Crl.M.P. The trial Court, considered the arguments advanced by both the counsel, dismissed Crl.M.P.No.2832 of 2007, against which, the present revision has been filed by the revision petitioners/accused.
3.When the matter was called on 28.03.2011, there was no representation for the petitioner. Again, when the matter was called on 01.04.2011, there was no representation for the petitioner and it was posted on 08.04.2011 under the caption “for orders”. Even though the matter was listed “for orders”, no one represented on behalf of the petitioner. Since C.C.No.311 of 2006 has been pending for past five years, this Court is of the view to peruse the materials available on records and pass the order on merits.
4.From the records, it is seen that the respondent/complainant herein supplied bricks to the revision petitioners/accused for construction work in January 2005. During the course of their business transaction, the revision petitioners/accused herein are liable to pay a sum of Rs.54,000/- till March 2005. In the month of June 2005, a post dated cheque No.989045, dated 17.04.2006 for a sum of Rs.54,000/- was issued to the respondent/complainant and the same was presented for encashment, which was returned as “payment stopped by drawer”. So the respondent/complainant issued a statutory notice on 10.07.2006 and the revision petitioners/accused were received the same on 17.07.2006. Having received the said notice, the accused had not paid the amount within the statutory period, issued a reply notice dated 31.07.2006. In their reply notice, they stated that in February 2005, they issued an undated cheque for Rs.54,000/-. Admittedly, while perusing their reply notice, it was specifically mentioned in para-5 is as follows:
“5.In the month of February 2005 my client had placed some orders and as usual had issued an undated cheque for the sum of Rs.54,000/- in anticipation of your supplying the material. .. ”
So the revision petitioners/accused admitted that they have issued an undated cheque for Rs.54,000/-. In the above stated circumstances, it is immaterial that where there is any alteration in the year 2005 into 2006, since the revision petitioners themselves admitted that they have given an undated cheque in the year 2005. Since issuance of cheque is admitted, so it is only a delaying tactics followed by the revision petitioners/accused. Hence, I do not find any merits in the petition. The trial Court, correctly held that the revision petitioners themselves admitted the issuance of undated cheque of Rs.54,000/- for supplying of goods. So there is no need to send the document for handwriting expert’s opinion. So I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court considered this aspect in proper perspective and dismissed the petition. Hence, the revision petitioners/accused are not entitled to any relief.
5.In fine,
The Criminal Revision is dismissed.
Impugned order passed by the trial Court is hereby
confirmed.
kj
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate
Perambalur.
2.The Record Keeper
Criminal Section, High Court,
Madras