A DHINAKAR Vs. I KEZHSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/Accused has filed Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 378 of 2012 as against the order dated 22.8.2012 in Cr. M.P. No. 45(A) of 2012 in C.C. No. 1 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court) No. II, Nager coil in dismissing the petition filed under Section 45-A of the Indian Evidence Act to send the cheque for ascertaining the age of the ink in signature, other contents in the cheque and number of pens used for filling in it by an expert of Forensic Science. The petitioner/accused has filed Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 379 of 2012 as against the order dated 22.8.2012 in Cr.M.P. No. 46(A) of 2012 in C.C. No. 2 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court) No. II, Nagercoil in dismissing the petition filed under Section 45-A of the Indian Evidence Act to send the cheque for ascertaining the age of the ink in signature, other contents in the cheque and number of pens used for filling in it by an Expert of Forensic Science.

(2.) The petitioner/Accused has filed Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 380 of 2012 as against the order dated 22.8.2012 in Cr. M.P. No. 47 of 2012 in C.C. No. 3 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court) No. II, Nagercoil in dismissing the petition filed under Section 45-A of the Indian Evidence Act to send the cheque for ascertaining the age of the ink in signature, other contents in the cheque and number of pens used for filling in it by an expert of Forensic Science.

(3.) The Learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court) No. II, Nagercoil, while passing the orders in Cr. M.P. Nos. 45(A)/12, 46(A)/12 and 47/12 respectively on 22.8.2012 has inter alia observed that the Petitioner/Accused has been given fair opportunities at the initial stage to raise his pleas mentioned in the petitions praying for the relief of obtaining an opinion of the Hand-Writing Expert in the private complaint and further that he has failed to avail all the fair opportunities in Cr. M.P. No. 47 of 2012 in C.C. No. 3 of 2012 by virtue of an order dated 22.8.2012 without adverting to the scope and ambit of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act having regard to the very evidence of the Respondent viz., P.W. 1.