1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 14.12.2011 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C. (MD).No.597 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 S.Radhakrishnan .. Petitioner vs. G.Murugan .. Respondent Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order, dated 17.06.2011 passed in Cr.M.P.No.2664 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur. For petitioner : Mr.R.Mathiyalagan For respondent : Mr.S.Gokulraj O R D E R This Criminal Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order, dated 17.06.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.2664 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Karur. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioner is the accused in the case registered under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, based on the complaint given by the respondent / complainant. As per the complaint, the petitioner / accused herein had issued a cheque bearing No. 008990, dated 23.08.2007 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- drawn in favour of the respondent / complainant on the Karur Town Co-operative Bank Ltd., Karur Branch for the consideration received. However, when the cheque was sent for collection through his banker, Canara Bank, Karur Branch on 28.08.2007, the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. 4. It is not in dispute that the prosecution evidence was closed after questioning the petitioner / accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the case was posted for defence witness, at this stage, the petitioner filed the aforesaid miscellaneous petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking an order to send the dishonoured cheque for expert opinion. 5. Today when the matter cane up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / accused submitted a DD, bearing No.596292, dated 23.11.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Dhanlakshmi Bank, Karur and handed over the same to the respondent through the learned appearing for the respondent. Without prejudice to the claim of the respondent / complainant, the same has been received. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, I find it just and reasonable to allow this revision petition. 7. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 17.06.2011 passed in Cr.M.P.No.2664 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur is set aside and the Court below is directed to provide opportunity to the petitioner / accused and send the dishonoured cheque for expert opinion, as per the procedure known to law. The petitioner / accused is directed to file a petition within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the Court below and deposit the amount required towards the expense for seeking expert opinion to be decided by the Court below and after getting expert opinion, the case shall be disposed of, according to law, uninfluenced by the findings, if any, by this Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar To The Judicial Magistrate No.I Karur. Tsvn SR : 28.12.2011 : 2p/2c Crl.R.C.(MD).No.597 of 2011 14-12-2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/