T R PARAMA SUNDARAM Vs. N GURUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the accused aggrieved over the dismissal of the Petition under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking to send the cheque for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert, by the Order dated 21.2.2013 made in C.M.P. No. 200 of 2013 in S.T.C. No. 1952 of 2003 on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.

(2.) The accused disputed the liability on the ground that he had borrowed only a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the year 1997 from the complainant towards the vehicle loan, which was also endorsed in the R.C. Book. The cheque was issued only as a security for the loan transaction. Even after the clearance of the loan, the cheque issued towards security has been misused and the complaint has been falsely laid. The accused examined two witnesses, namely, DW1-Bank Manager, who has spoken about the issuance of cheque in the year 1997 and DW2-Regional Transport Officer, who has spoken about the entries made in the Registration Certificate regarding the loan transaction with Guru Finance of which the complainant was the Managing Director. The accused has admitted the signature in the cheque, but disputed the contents/writings under Ex. PI, cheque. At the same time, the accused has admitted the writings under Ex. P2-Challan as that of him. On this basis, the Accused filed a petition seeking to compare Ex. P2 containing the admitted handwriting/signature of the accused with that of Ex. P1, cheque, under which though signature is admitted, the writings are disputed. The petition was dismissed, as against which the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) The petition has been dismissed on the ground that as the signature in the cheque is admitted and Section 20 of the N.I. Act gives authority to the holder to fill up the cheque, it is not necessary to send the documents for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert. This order is under challenge.