RAJENDRAN Vs. USHARANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJENDRAN, the petitioner herein has filed this petition under Sec.482, Cr.P.C. for directing the trial court to send the cheque dated 3.11.1997 to handwriting expert to give the opinion with regard to the age of the signature, age of the date and age of the writings filled up in the cheque.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of this petition are as follows: "(a) THE complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner and the same was taken on file on 3.3.1998. THE evidence for the prosecution was completed on 29.4.1998. After questioning, the case was posted for defence on 15.5.1998. Defence witnesses, viz. D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. THE case was periodically adjourned. Finally, the case was posted on 19.2.1999 for further examination of defence witnesses. At that stage, the petitioner/accused filed an application requesting the court to send the cheque in question to the handwriting expert to get the opinion regarding the age of the writings and signature found in the cheque. (b) According to the petitioner, he issued the cheque in question to the husband of the complainant in 1995. However, he discharged the said amount under Ex.D1. He was not able to get back the cheque since the complainant's husband suddenly died. After his death, the cheque was filled up as if it was issued on 3.11.1997 and a false case has been filed by the complainant, the respondent herein. Except the signature of the petitioner and the amount in figure and in words, all other words were filled up by the complainant. So, projecting his case in this way, the petitioner/accused filed an application to send the cheque in question to the handwriting expert in order to find out the age of the signature of the accused and other writings. (c) THE said application was dismissed by the trial court holding that the application was filed without any merit in order to drag on the proceedings and to harass the complainant. THE petitioner filed a revision as against the said order before the Sessions Court which, in turn, dismissed the same confirming the order of the trial court. Hence, this petition under Sec.482, Cr.P.C.".

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would cite the decision in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India , (1991)1 S.C.C. (Supp.) 271 to show that the accused is entitled to fair and reasonable opportunity to rebut the evidence brought on record against him.