VASUDEVAN Vs. ARHAM PLASTICS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who stands accused of offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in case pending in C.C.No.7978/2001 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore seeks a direction to the lower Court that the documents marked as Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5 by it be referred to a handwriting expert of a Government accredited forensic laboratory for examination and report in the interest of justice.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent is continuously absent.

(3.) The contention made on behalf of the petitioner is that he had business dealings with the respondent/complainant firm and one of the employees of such firm who came to effect collection from the petitioner's shop stole three blank un-signed cheque leaves and it is such cheque leaves which have been falsely filled up towards mulcting the petitioner with liability. Immediately upon receipt of statutory notice under section section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act dated 27.062001, the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam on 02.07.2001. The petitioner also caused a legal reply dated 09.07.2001 clearly indicating that the cheques in question were stolen by the employees of the respondent and the same was used by them and seeking the return of the cheques. It is averred that the respondent had forged cheques and also some letters and that the subject cheque and two documents fabricated by the respondent have been marked as Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5 respectively. The petitioner had applied for certified xerox copies of the documents and filed petition in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2004 before the trial court praying that such documents been referred to forensic department for examination by a hand writing expert. On such petition being dismissed on 29.01.2004, the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.28 of 2004 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai which again was dismissed on 16.07.2004. As against such orders, the petitioner is now before this Court.