1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C (MD).No.166 of 2011 V.Sampath Kumar ... Petitioner vs. P.R.Raja ... Respondent Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C, against the order, dated 31.12.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5678 of 2010 in S.T.C.No.152 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur. For petitioner : Mr.R.Boomirajan For respondent : Mr.A.Arun Prasad ORDER Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent. 2. Challenging the order, dated 31.12.2010 made in Crl.M.P.No.5678 of 2010 in S.T.C.No.152 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur, this revision has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. It is seen that the petitioner was arrayed as sole accused in the case in S.T.C.No.152 of 2008 on the file of the Court below. During the pendency of the case, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, seeking an order to send the cheque for expert opinion. According to the petitioner, he has disputed the signature available in the cheque. 4. As per Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused in the case pending on the file of the Court below under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is entitled to seek expert opinion, if he disputes the signature. Had the petition been filed with a view to protract the proceedings, the Court can reject the plea, considering the delay tactics adopted by the petitioner. In the instant case, admittedly the trial is yet to be commenced and it is the duty of the court to give reasonable opportunity to the accused, when the signature is disputed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioner, as the cheque has been dishonoured by the bank. Without considering the legal proposition, the learned Magistrate has passed a crippled docket order in the petition filed before the Court below. I could find no valid reason for rejecting the plea of the petitioner / accused in sending the cheque for expert opinion. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has no tenable objection with regard to the legal aspect. 5. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view to allow this revision petition, accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Court below is set aside and the Court below is directed to pass appropriate orders for sending the document for expert opinion and it is made clear that the petitioner is bound to deposit the amount required for getting expert opinion within the time limit. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that a time frame be fixed for the disposal of the case, since the matter is pending for a long time. 7. Considering the aforesaid request, the Court below is directed to dispose the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the opinion of the expert, after providing reasonable opportunity for both sides, uninfluenced by the findings, if any by this Court. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Judicial Magistrate No.II Thanjavuar. Tsvn ssk/23.11.2011 /2c -2p/- Crl.R.C.(MD).No.166 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/