1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :07.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD) No.195 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Mohamed Kasim : Revision Petitioner/Sole accused Vs. Mohamed Kalifullah : Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C praying to call for the records and set aside the order dated 07.02.2011 passed in Cr.M.P.No.5442 of 2010 in C.C.No.62 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti. For petitioner : Mr.M.Karunanithi O R D E R The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.62 of 2009, pending on the file of the Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti. The said complaint was filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The defence taken by the petitioner/accused is that the signature found in the cheque, marked as Ex.P.1 is not his signature. In this regard, he has taken out an application to send the cheque for expert opinion and the expert opinion has also been obtained. It is the specific case of the petitioner/ accused that prior to the filing of the complaint, a Muchalika was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent, which was marked as Ex.D.4, under which the complainant has agreed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- for the purpose of settling the case. However, during the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that the signature found in Ex.D.4 was not that of the complainant. Hence, the petitioner has filed the petition under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.D.4, Muchalika for expert opinion. The said application was strongly opposed by the respondent. The trial Court after taking into consideration, the relevant circumstances has dismissed the application and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused has preferred the present criminal revision. 3. Heard Mr.M.Karunanithi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a complainant filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden of the accused is very heavy and he is under the statutory obligation of rebutting the presumption. Hence, the accused took the petition under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and the same has been rejected by the trial Court without any justifiable reason. 5. This Court has carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the materials available in the form of typed set of documents. 6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he has denied the cheque and the cheque was also subjected to expert opinion and during the pendency of the complainant a compromise was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent, which was reduced into writing as Ex.D.4, Muchalika, under which the complainant agrees to give Rs.2,50,000/- and settle the dispute, but the learned counsel for the complainant during arguments denied the signature of the complainant in Ex.D.4-Muchalika. 7. In the considered opinion of the Court, the application lacks merits and substance. A perusal of the impugned order will disclose that the petition was filed on 01.12.2010 and the counter was filed on 13.12.2010 and thereafter, the petition was adjourned four time and subsequently, the matter was adjourned twice. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has also filed an application to reopen the petition. The trial Court taking into consideration the attitude of the petitioner in prolonging the matter has dismissed the application. It is also the case of the petitioner/accused, the opinion given by the handwriting expert in respect of the impugned cheque is in his favour and that in order to prove Ex.D.4, Muchalikka, he has also examined D.W.1. Hence, this Court is of the view, it is not necessary to send Ex.D.4- Muchalikka for expert opinion, that apart the lower Court has given tenable reason for dismissing the petition. 8. Hence, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To: The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti. Crl.R.C.(MD) No.195 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 07.03.2011 sj NSV/21.3.11/2P/2C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/