PANDIAN Vs. M.KAMALAKANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/complainant has projected the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 24.7.2012 in Cr. M.P. No. 3069 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 235 of 2008, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, while passing the order dated 24.7.2012 in Cr. M.P. No. 3069 of 2012, has among other things observed that the age of the ink of the letters found in the Cheques concerned in S.T.C. No. 235 of 2008 is to be found out with that of the admitted signatures of the petitioner/accused and resultantly allowed the Petition, praying for sending the Cheques for examination and obtaining the opinion of the Expert, filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(2.) Assailing the correctness of the order dated 24.7.2012, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam in Cr. M.P. No. 3069 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 235 of 2008, the Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the respondent/accused earlier filed a Petition under Section 45(A) of the Indian Evidence Act, for obtaining an Expert opinion in the year 2009 before the Trial Court and the same has been dismissed, based on the reason that there are no facilities to verify the ink and script and even the Revision Petition filed by the respondent/accused has been dismissed by the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni. As such, it is not open to the respondent/accused to prefer another Cr. M.P. No. 3069 of 2012 before the Trial Court and in this regard, the Trial Court has committed an error in passing an order allowing the Petition.

(3.) The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner/complainant is that as against the adverse order passed by the Learned District and Sessions Judge in the Revision Petition, the respondent/accused has not taken further steps to question the order passed in the Revision before the Higher Forum, not withstanding the fact he has a remedy to question the same and inasmuch as the earlier order passed by the Trial Court in the earlier Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and the same is being dismissed and later, the Revision preferred before the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge has been dismissed, those orders have become conclusive, final between the parties and therefore, the respondent/accused is estopped or precluded from filing the another Petition in Cr. M.P. No. 3069 of 2012 before the Trial Court making the very same prayer once again to ascertain the age of the ink of the letters found in the disputed cheques etc.