S. CHANDRAMOHAN Vs. T.R. MANICKEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is figured as an accused in C.C.No.4 of 2017, dtd. 26/2/2021, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Fast Track Court @ Magisterial Level, Coimbatore, for offence under Sec. 138 of negotiable Instruments Act. Soon after receiving the summons in this case, the petitioner took out an application under sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for filing Crl.MP.No.100 of 2017 . However, the said application came to be dismissed only last year i.e. on 26/2/2020. It appears that the petitioner did not receive the copy of the same immediately. That explains the delay in challenging the said order.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly states that since the statutory presumtion under sec. 139 of NI Act has been drawn against the petitioner, it is the duty of the petitioner to rebut the same. It is for that purpose he has sought to refer the pro-note as well as the cheque in question for obtaining the expert's opinion. The specific stand of the petitioner is that the signature found in the pro-note as well as the cheque in question are not that of the petitioner and it is a rank forgery. However, the learned trial Magistrate declined to accept the said stand of the petitioner and dismissed the petition. Challenging the same, the revision case has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds. He also took me through the testimony of the witnesses.