ALAGAMMAI Vs. SOCKALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order, dated 11.10.2010 passed in M.P.No.7033 of 2010 in C.C.No.511 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District, this criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner herein.

(2.) IT is seen that the petition in M.P.No.7033 of 2010 was filed by the revision petitioner herein before the Court below seeking an order under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send two cheques relating to the case pending before the Court below to forensic laboratory for getting expert opinion regarding the genuineness of the signature.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent drew the attention of this Court to the impugned order, wherein the court below has found that in the reply notice, the petitioner / accused has not specifically denied the signature. On 07.03.2008 when the petitioner / accused was questioned, she had not raised any defence disputing the signature and further, the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.5633 of 2008, was not pressed by the petitioner on 16.12.2009. Then on 11.04.2008, the petitioner / accused appeared before the court below and prayed time for settlement. During pendency of the case, she took several adjournments, accordingly, the case was adjourned for 26 hearings, then again the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.3968 of 2008 to quash the proceedings. This Court, by order passed in the criminal original petition directed the court below to dispose it within three months from the date of the order. The Court below also found that after the complainants evidence was closed and when the case was posted for 313 questioning, the petitioner / accused filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C to recall the complainant, who was examined as prosecution witness for the purpose of cross examination. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is only a delay tactics adopted by the petitioner / accused and that there is no bonafide reason for allowing the petition.