IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06..07..2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA CRL.RC.No.103 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 P.Raju .. Petitioner vs. E.M.Sadasivam .. Respondent Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 05.12.2006 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4894 of 2006 in C.C.No.795 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode. For petitioner : No appearance For Respondent : Mrs.S.Meenakumari O R D E R
Animadverting upon the order dated 05.12.2006 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4894 of 2006 in C.C.No.795 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode, this criminal revision petition is focussed.
2. An epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision would run thus:
(i) The respondent herein filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode, as against the accused, who entered appearance and contested the matter. During the pendency of the said C.C.No.795 of 2004, Crl.M.P.No.4894 of 2006 was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the purported signature of the accused in the impugned cheque concerned to the expert for getting his opinion, relating to the genuineness of the signature found therein; whereupon the complainant resisted that Crl.M.P. The learned Magistrate passed orders dismissing the said petition.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision has been filed by the accused setting out various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus:
The lower court failed to give due opportunity of getting the assistance of an hand writing expert. The accused disputed the purported signature in the cheque and in such a case, his request for taking the assistance of a hand writing expert should not have been dismissed by the lower court.
4. Despite giving opportunity, the revision petitioner has not appeared and no representation on his behalf has been made. However, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant appeared and put forth and set forth her arguments to the effect that the lower court appositely and appropriately, correctly and convincingly, furnished reasons for rejecting the said Crl.M.P filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act on the main ground that the very accused himself committed in black and white in his insolvency petition filed before the insolvency court concerned and the certified copy of the insolvency petition also was filed before the court and hence, there is no necessity for this court to interfere with the order passed by the lower court , while exercising its revisional jurisdiction in this matter.
5. A plain reading of the order of the lower court would highlight and spotlight the fact that the complainant placed before the court, the relevant facts that the accused/revision petitioner herein in the insolvency petition, viz.I.P.No.27 of 2004 filed before the court concerned admitted his liability under the impugned cheques herein and also the factum of he having issued the cheques for Rs.65,000/-.
6. In para No.6 of the order of the lower court, it is found exemplified that the certified copy of I.P.No.27 of 2004 instituted by the accused, was filed before the Magistrate court concerned, in that under Schedule ‘A’ liability at Sl.No.4, the petitioner admitted his liability towards the complainant in a sum of Rs.1,71,777/- and also the factum of he having issued the cheques drawn on Dena Bank, Erode.
7. In such a case, I am of the opinion that the lower court dismissed the petition on the very strong ground available before it, warranting no interference by this court. Absolutely, there is no perversity or non application of law in deciding the said Crl.M.P. Accordingly, the revision fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
msk
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Erode