A SIVAGNANA PANDIAN Vs. M RAVICHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is accused in C.C. No. 44 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi. The case originated on the private complaint lodged by the Respondent/complainant on the strength of a cheque delivered to him by this Petitioner. When the case was in the part-heard stage, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to refer the cheque to the Forensic Science Expert to ascertain the age of the ink.

(2.) In the petition filed by him, it is stated that the Respondent has falsely claimed that for getting the loan, the Petitioner has delivered cheque for Rs. 9,00,000/-, that in the cheque the Petitioner laid his signature alone intending to get a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-only from the Respondent and reposing confidence upon the Respondent, he handed over the cheque to him. At the time of delivering the cheque, the Petitioner's signature alone was there and other particulars were not filled up. So in order to institute a false case, the contents were filled in the cheque afterwards. Hence, the age of the ink utilised for signature by the Petitioner has to be ascertained by the forensic expert. Then only, the factual back ground would come to light and hence the cheque may be referred to forensic science expert.

(3.) In the counter filed by the Respondent it is stated that the claim of the Petitioner to find out the age of the ink in the signature is not covered by Section 45 of the Evidence Act. It is meant only for comparison of the hand writings and signatures. The relief under the request of the accused is not required for the Court to decide the matter in issue. Without any ambiguity the Petitioner admitted his signature in the cheque. Hence the claim for ascertaining the age is meaningless. The Petitioner is the competent person to say about his signatures and hence the expert opinion is not essential. The Petitioner has protracted the case for 7 years. The petition is filed purely with dishonesty, evil intention and with speculation. The only issue for consideration is whether the signature found in the cheque belongs to the accused or not. Hence the petition may be dismissed.