M KUMARASAMY Vs. V SIVARAJ KARTHIKEYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Revision against the order, dated 28.02.2007, made in Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2006 in C.A.No.135 of 2006, on the file of Fast Track Court No.III, Dharapuram.) Petitioner is the appellant before the Fast Track Court No.III, Dharapuram, in C.A.No.135 of 2006, which he preferred against the conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, in C.C.No.108 of 2003, which was taken up on file, on the complaint preferred by the respondent herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He filed an application before the Fast Track Court to receive an audio cassette and the typed matter of recorded version contained in the said audio cassette. It was stated by the petitioner that he delivered a blank signed cheque to one Muthusamy as security in a chit transaction, but, it was, thereafter, given to the respondent, who misused it and lodged a complaint, claiming a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs, on the strength of the said cheque. It was the defence of the petitioner that he does not know who the respondent was; the cheque was not at all supported by any consideration; pending the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, there was a discussion among the Surya Finance Muthusamy and its partners Varadarajan and Nataraj with regard to the receipt of the said cheque by the respondent and the said conversation was recorded by the petitioner in an audio cassette and the said audio cassette was sought to be received as additional evidence in the appeal before the Fast Track Court, Dharapuram, under Section 391 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE above said allegations in the petition were controverted to by the respondent in his counter before the said Court, contending that no such discussion took place as stated; the petitioner had not filed any application nor did he represent the alleged discussion before the Judicial Magistrate Court; no such petition was filed before the Court below and hence his request would not be entertained.

(3.) IN the above said decision, it has been further held that merely on the ground that there is every possibility of tampering with the recorded conversation, it cannot be said that it is inadmissible in evidence.