PREMA Vs. D RAMASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order, dated 8.6.2010 made in Crl. M.P. No. 6017 of 2010 in C.C. No. 417 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District.

(2.) IT is seen that the aforesaid miscellaneous petition was filed under Sections 293 and 311 of Cr.P.C, seeking an order to send the document for expert opinion. IT is an admitted fact that the case was taken on file on the complaint given by the respondent herein under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 200 Cr.P.C.

(3.) IT is an admitted fact that the petitioner/accused had sought an order to send the cheque relating to this case for expert opinion for comparison with the specimen. IT is an admitted fact that after the closing of complainant's evidence, the case was posted for questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, subsequently, the petitioner/accused examined herself as D.W.1. As per the certified copy of the deposition, it is made clear that the petitioner has admitted her signature available in the cheque. According to her, there was one Saju, son of one Gopala Panicker, working in her house as driver, who was attending her house hold work and he used to commit theft of small amounts, hence, he was sent out from her house. According to the petitioner/accused, she had handed over the signed blank cheque to the said Saju for making certain payments, later on, she came to know that one of the said cheques was misused for the purpose of filing this case. In her cross-examination, the petitioner has not denied her signature available in the dishonoured cheque, however, she has stated that the cheque was not filled up by her.