IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.04.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.11879 of 2007 And M.P.No.1 of 2007 Vasudevan ... Petitioner Versus Arham Plastics Ltd., Rep. by its Power Agent: Meyyappan ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records in Crl.R.C.No.28/2004 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge Chennai and set aside the order dated 16.07.2004 confirming the order dated 29.01.2004 passed by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.11/2004 in C.C.No.7978/2001 and direct that the said documents marked as Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5 in C.C.No.7978/2001 be referred to a handwriting expert of a Government accredited forensic laboratory for examination and report in the interest of justice. For Petitioner : M/s.Manoj Sreevalsan For Respondent : No Appearance O R D E R The petitioner who stands accused of offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in case pending in C.C.No.7978/2001 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore seeks a direction to the lower Court that the documents marked as Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5 by it be referred to a handwriting expert of a Government accredited forensic laboratory for examination and report in the interest of justice. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent is continuously absent. 3.The contention made on behalf of the petitioner is that he had business dealings with the respondent/complainant firm and one of the employees of such firm who came to effect collection from the petitioner's shop stole three blank un-signed cheque leaves and it is such cheque leaves which have been falsely filled up towards mulcting the petitioner with liability. Immediately upon receipt of statutory notice under section section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act dated 27.062001, the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam on 02.07.2001. The petitioner also caused a legal reply dated 09.07.2001 clearly indicating that the cheques in question were stolen by the employees of the respondent and the same was used by them and seeking the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ return of the cheques. It is averred that the respondent had forged cheques and also some letters and that the subject cheque and two documents fabricated by the respondent have been marked as Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5 respectively. The petitioner had applied for certified xerox copies of the documents and filed petition in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2004 before the trial court praying that such documents been referred to forensic department for examination by a hand writing expert. On such petition being dismissed on 29.01.2004, the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.28 of 2004 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai which again was dismissed on 16.07.2004. As against such orders, the petitioner is now before this Court. 4.Though there is a bar under section 397(iii) Cr.P.C. for entertaining a second revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present petition moved under section 482 Cr.P.C. would not suffer the fate of a second revision by the same petitioner. The interests of justice require that the instrument under challenge be opined upon by an expert. If this Court held otherwise, the petitioner would suffer grave and irreparable injustice particularly when the petitioner had upon the earliest occasion filed a complaint and also forwarded a reply to the statutory notice. The counsel submits that it is pertinent that the respondent/ complainant did not cause any response to the reply submitted by the petitioner. 5.Considering the above submissions this Court is of the view, that the interests of justice best would be served by affording the petitioner an opportunity to establish his defence. For the above reason this petition shall stand allowed. Under such circumstances, a direction is issued to the trial Court that the documents marked as Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5 by it in C.C.No.7978 of 2001 be referred to a handwriting expert of a Government accredited forensic laboratory for examination and report in the interests of justice. 6.The petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar pri To 1.The Principal Sessions Judge Chennai. 2.The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 3.-Do- Thro' The Cheif Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Crl.O.P.No.11879 of 2007 And M.P.No.1 of 2007 pkb(co)pmk.26.4.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/