IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 28.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. SUDANTHIRAM Criminal Original Petition No.29457 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 P.Narayanan Proprietor : Bombay Engineering Works Mahadavi Bharathiar Nagar Karatankattu Thottam Villarasampati (PO) Erode – 638 107. ..... Petitioner Versus C.Dhayalan ..... Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 30.09.2008 made in Crl.R.C.No.42 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions / District Judge, Erode confirming the order dated 26.05.2008 in C.M.P. No.2249 of 2008 in C.C.No.493 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy For Respondent : Mr.C.S.Saravanan O R D E R The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.493/2007 on the file of the Judicial magistrate No.I, Erode. He filed an application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the disputed cheque along with admitted signature of the accused to a handwriting expert to get an opinion after comparing the signature in the cheque with the admitted signatures. The said petition was dismissed. The petitioner also preferred a Revision before the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode in Crl.R.C.No.42 and the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had disputed the signature in the cheque and he had put question to the complainant in that aspect during the cross- examination. But, the the courts below have dismissed the application merely for the reason that the petitioner had not denied the signature in the cheque while he was questioned under Section 313 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i)(b)Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to prove his case. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner had not sent any reply to the statutory notice sent by the complainant and further, the requisition being dismissed by the Sessions Court, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and it would amount to second revision. 4.This court heard both sides and perused the records. It appears from the record that the accused has not denied the signature in the cheque, earlier part of time by way of giving reply to the statutory notice and he had also not specifically stated while questioning him under section 313 (i)(b) Cr.P.C. that the signature was not signed by him. Both the courts below have rightly assigned the reason for dismissing the petitions. 5.Section 397(3) of Cr.P.C. is as follows: "If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them". The petitioner herein having preferred a revision before the Sessions Court cannot be permitted to prefer an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. thereby circumventing the bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. for second revision. Hence, this criminal original petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vri To 1.The Prl.Sessions/District Judge, Erode. 2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode. 3.-do- Thro Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. 1 cc To Mr..R.Marudhachalamurthy, Advocate, SR.6605 1 cc To Mr.C.S.Saravanan, Advocate, SR.6542 Crl.OP No.29457 of 2008 rsy(co)pmk.6.4.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/