P R RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. GOVINDARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this revision challenging the order of the learned Magistrate, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act with a prayer to send the disputed cheque dated 15-6-2004.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing the trial for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is disputing his signature in the alleged cheque. As such, he has come forward with the petition for sending the same for export opinion. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as far as the cheque is concerned, only the complainant has filed the proof affidavit and immediately he was filed objection for sending the disputed cheque for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate has simply dismissed the petition only on the ground that the petitioner has come forward with the belated petition and no other reason was assigned by the learned Magistrate.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance decision of the honourable Supreme Court reported in 2006 (13) Scale 459 (Mrs. Kalyani Baskar v. Mrs. M. S. Sampooranam), to the proposition that. the learned Magistrate shall take appropriate steps for obtaining the report of the handwriting expert, once the signature in the cheque is disputed by the accused and the accused has come forward with a plea to send the same for expert opinion. 3a. Mr. K. Rajasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that the learned Magistrate has assigned the reason to the effect that the cheque is issued in April 2004 and the document claimed by the accused to be sent for comparing the signatures is the old document relating to the year 1991 and therefore it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the learned magistrate has assigned reasonable grounds for rejecting the application.