(1.) All the three Criminal Revision Cases have been filed by the petitioners/accused, aggrieved by the common order dated 7.6.2012 passed by the Court below, by which the petitions filed by the respondent/complainant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act were allowed. The petitioners are facing the criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of the respondent/complainant under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. S.T.C. No. 110 of 2012 was filed by R. Subramaniam, respondent in Crl. R.C. No. 654 of 2012 for dishonour of a cheque for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. S.T.C. No. 94 of 2012 was filed by R. Karuppanasamy, respondent in Crl.R.C. No. 655 of 2012 for dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 4,00,000/-. S.T.C. No. 120 of 2012 was filed by K. Kumarasamy, respondent in Crl.R.C. No. 657 of 2012 for dishonour of the cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/-.
(2.) Pending the aforesaid S.T.C. Nos. 110, 94 and 120 of 2012 respectively, the respondent/complainant herein have filed Petitions under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act in (i) Crl. M.P. No. 1811 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 110 of 2012 (ii) Crl. M.P. No. 2057 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 94 of 2012 and (iii) Crl. M.P. No. 1886 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 120. The contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners is that during the course of cross-examination, the accused have denied that they did not receive any money at all from the respondents/complainants by executing promissory notes or any other instruments and therefore, in order to disprove such an averment in the cross-examination, it has become necessary to file the petition praying to pass appropriate orders directing to take left hand thumb impressions of the accused in the open Court, send the promissory notes in the above case and the thumb impression taken in the open Court to Government hand writing and fingerprint expert at Chennai for comparison and call for a report. The petitioners/accused have also filed their counter before the Court below opposing the petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court below, after hearing both sides and on perusal of the materials on record, accepted the contentions urged on behalf of the respondents/complainants and allowed the petitions under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case are filed.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that though the cheques in question were issued by the petitioners/accused and also signed by them, the transaction was not supported by any consideration or the cheques were not issued for discharge of any legally enforceable liability. Therefore, the petitioners/accused are no way liable or responsible to pay the cheque amount. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused, the petitioners, as accused in the proceedings initiated under Section 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act, are entitled to maintain silence and it is for the respondents/complainants to prove their respective case by letting in oral and documentary evidence. While so, the petitioners, who were arrayed as accused, cannot be compelled or forced to affix their thumb impressions in the open Court which would amount to crippling the right of the accused in the criminal proceedings initiated against him. When the petitioners/accused have denied the execution of promissory notes, they cannot be called upon to affix their thumb impression in the open Court which is in violation of the protection guaranteed to an accused under Article 20(3) of The Constitution of India, wherein it is provided that no accused can be compelled to give evidence against his own case. Therefore, the direction issued by the Court below, directing the petitioners/accused to affix the thumb impression in the open Court amounts to denial of legal right vested with the petitioners/accused and it is liable to be interfered by this Court.