1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.R.C.(MD).No.84 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Vairavan :Petitioner/Accused Vs. Selvaraj :Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. Section 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, in Cr.M.P.No.6351 of 2010 in S.T.C.No.672 of 2009 and set aside the order dated 03.12.2010. For Petitioner :: No appearance For Respondent :: Mr.M.Ramasubramanian ORDER This Criminal Revision arises against the order of dismissal made in Cr.M.P.No.6351 of 2010 in S.T.C.No.672 of 2010, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam. 2. The lower Court in dismissing a petition calling for expert opinion on the writings on a cheque, which had given rise to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has taken into consideration the contentions made on behalf of the de-facto complainant that the petitioner/accused had not raised the contention of the cheque not having been duly issued, has not denied his signature while the de- facto complainant was cross-examined nor had raised such issue at the stage of 313 Cr.P.C. questioning, that the petitioner/ accused had admitted his signature in the course of his cross-examination as D.W.1 and reasoning that the petitioner/accused had not put up any contemporaneous documents to establish his case of having handed over a blank cheque which had been misused, dismissed the petition, seeking an expert opinion. 3. This Court has called for the records and finds that it has been the consistent case of the petitioner/accused that the cheque belonging to him which had been handed over to a known person as security and such person made wrongful entries thereupon in the hand-writing of different persons, and caused presentation of the cheque and foisted a false case. The petitioner's consistent stand is that he has not signed the cheque and the de-facto complainant was not a person known to him. 4. In this circumstances, it would be more appropriate for the lower Court to afford an opportunity to the petitioner/accused to substantiate his case by forwarding the cheque in question for the opinion https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of an expert for the purpose of comparison of handwriting. The lower Court could well resort to Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Accordingly, the revision petition shall stand allowed. The lower Court shall now require the petitioner/accused to produce contemporaneous documents as also call upon him to effect signatures and handwriting in keeping with Section 73 of the Evidence Act and forward such material along with the cheque for the opinion of the expert. The lower Court shall act with due despatch and follow up with the Forensic Science Department towards obtaining the expert opinion on an early date and seek to complete the proceedings before it, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( P AND A ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR srm To The Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam. 1CC TO MR. P. SENGUTTURASAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 9263: DM:2011::MARCH:16::: Crl.R.C.(MD)No.84 of 2011 2P:3C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/