ANIL RAVINDRAN Vs. A. RAMA PAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and is shown to be dated 31/12/1999. Notice of demand though duly received was not replied to by the accused. Accused, in the course of the trial, has taken up a contention that the date 31/12/1999 is an alteration / forgery and that when the cheque was handed over, it bore the date 31/12/1997. The last digit 7 has now been altered to 9. This is the crucial contention raised. According to the petitioner, in 1997 when there was a transaction of Rs.30,000/-, two cheques one for Rs.30,000/- and another for Rs.50,000/- were obtained from the petitioner by the complainant who is a money lender and he had kept the same with him. In respect of the cheque for Rs.30,000/-, Annexure B notice was issued. Annexure C cheque was issued along with the original of Annexure D reply notice by the petitioner himself directly to the advocate.

(2.) The complainant denied these allegations. Earlier transactions were not disputed. But it was contended that the cheque evidences a liability to repay an amount of Rs.50,000/- and it always bore the date 31/12/1999. The accused, it was pointed out by the complainant, had already suffered a civil decree for the amounts shown in this cheque.

(3.) At the stage of defence evidence, accused filed an application to forward the cheque to the expert to ascertain and report whether there has been any alteration / forgery in respect of the last digit of the year ("7" or "9"). The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, rejected the said prayer. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said rejection.