1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD) No.333 of 2011 Subbaiah : Revision Petitioner/Accused Vs. R.Dennis Raj : Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.467 of 2010 in C.C.No.179 of 2007 dated 08.11.2010 on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin. For petitioner : Ms.S.Raghaventhree For Respondent : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha O R D E R By consent, the Criminal Revision Case itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.179 of 2007 pending on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin and he filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.467 of 2010 under Section 243(2) Cr.P.C. to send 1. Ex.P.2 - Agreement dated 14.07.2002. 2. Ex.A.6 - Specimen signature dated 28.03.2007. 3. - Signature in deposition dated 27.01.2005. 4. - Signature in deposition dated 28.03.2007. to hand writing and finger print expert to compare the signature of P.W.3 with the admitted signatures and to submit his report. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is averred that there are differences in signatures in the concerned documents which are invisible to naked eye and hence, the above said documents have to be scrutinized by the expert. The respondent has filed a counter stating among other things that earlier, the petitioner filed petition for similar relief in C.M.P.No.1686 of 2007 and the same was allowed on 11.06.2008 and challenging the vires of the same, he preferred revision in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.582 of 2008, which was also allowed setting aside the said order on 20.01.2010 and at the time allowing the Criminal Revision Case, direction was given to the Court of Additional District Munsif, Thoothukudi to expedite the trial. Therefore, citing the said reason, the respondent prays for dismissal of the petition. The lower Court taking into consideration the averments made in the petition and counter and after hearing the respective counsel appearing for the parties, has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 dismissed the petition vide order dated 08.11.2010 and challenging the vires of the same, present petition is filed. 4. Ms.Raghaventhree, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that sending of documents to expert opinion is absolutely necessary to dislodge the presumption and hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 5. Per contra, Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the order of this Court dated 20.01.2010 made in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.582 of 2008 and would submit that the petition filed by the revision petitioner for sending the documents to expert opinion, is highly misconceived and the present Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 6. Since the revision petitioner has taken a plea that the lower Court has passed a cryptic order, this Court called for a report from the learned Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin, and vide his report dated 27.06.2011, has submitted that after hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, he passed a detailed order and the report is also placed on record. 7. A perusal of the order dated 20.01.2010, made in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.582 of 2008 would indicate that the petitioner has filed Cr.M.P.No.1687 of 2007 for similar relief making the very same averments and the same was rejected by this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.582 of 2008. Therefore, Cr.M.P.No.467 of 2010 filed by the revision petitioner for similar relief with very same averments in the considered opinion of the Court is misconceived and only to protract the proceedings. 8. This Court on a careful consideration of the rival submissions and also the materials available on record finds that this Criminal Revision Case lacks merits and substance and there are no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order and therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Since, Calender Case is of the year 2003, which was transferred to the Court of Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin and re-numbered as C.C.No.179 of 2007, the trial Court is directed to give atmost priority for the disposal of C.C.No.179 of 2007 and in any event shall complete the trial and pronounce verdict on or before 30.08.2011. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin. Crl.R.C.(MD) No.333 of 2011 sj 29.06.2011 NSV/14.07.11/2P/2C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/