S THANGAMUTHU Vs. N PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 1269 of 2002 in C.C.No. 24 of 2001 by the Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam, dismissing the petition filed by the accused/petitioner to send the cheques in question for comparison with the signatures of the accused/petitioner.

(2.) THE circumstances under which the said order came to be passed is as follows: A complaint had been given by the complainant/respondent against the accused/petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'the Act') on the averments that the accused/petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/ - from him on 31.06.2000 for urgent business expenses and to discharge the said liability the accused/petitioner had issued a cheque dated 14.07.2000 in his favour drawn on State Bank of India, Kangayam, which on presentation was returned dishonoured with the remarks "Funds Insufficient". Hence a notice as contemplated under the Act was issued. The accused/petitioner on receipt of the same had replied stating that he has never issued a cheque and that if it is said that it has been issued by him, it is a forged one. Thereafter, after waiting for the mandatory period, the prosecution was launched. It is at that stage when the matter was pending trial and even before the witnesses could be examined, the accused/petitioner had filed a petition for getting the signatures in the cheque to be compared with the admitted signatures. The Court below upon hearing both sides had dismissed the said petition stating that the Court itself can compare the signatures and that it is not necessary to send the same to the hand writing expert. It is against the said order, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the accused/petitioner would now agitate that even before the launching of the prosecution, the accused has come forward with the version that the signature in the alleged cheque is not that of his signature and that he never anticipated the present prosecution. His further contention is that he having filed this petition even before any witnesses could be examined, the learned Magistrate ought to have sent it for comparison only to come to a just conclusion.