P RAJENDRAN Vs. K K PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate No.VIII, Coimbatore, made in Crl.M.P.No. 1599 of 2006 in C.C.No,241 of 2004 on 08.09.2006, which was confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Coimbatore, in Crl.R.P.No,90 of 2006 dated 02.11.2006 and allow the Criminal Original PETITION.) The petitioner has filed this Criminal Original PETITION to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VIII, Coimbatore, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1599 of 2006 in C.C.No,241 of 2004 on 08.09.2006, which was confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court Judge, Coimbatore, in Crl.R.P.No,90 of 2006 on 02.11.2006.

(2.) IT is averred by the petitioner that in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No,483 of 2005, filed by him, the learned Magistrate appointed a Commissioner to hand over a cheque to forensic department for signature verification as the signature found in his cheque was not that of the petitioner that the trial Court granted a month's time to deposit the Commissioner's and Expert's fees. IT is the further averment of the petitioner that due to loss in his business, he was not able to deposit the fees in the trial Court and hence the trial Court closed his petition. The petitioner filed an application to reopen the petition and the trial Court did not consider it. Hence, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No,90 of 2006 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Coimbatore. The appellate Court dismissed the Revision Petition stating that the Court had ample power to verify the signature and the petitioner alone is dragging the case.

(3.) FROM the averments contained in the affidavit of the petitioner, it is seen that, in C.C.No,241 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No.VIII of Coimbatore, after the commencement of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the petitioner has preferred the Crl.R.P.No,90 of 2006 before the Appellate Court. It is observed by the Appellate Court that even though the petitioner was directed to deposit the expert fees pursuant to the order dated 07.04.2005, such deposit was not made by the petitioner inspite of many opportunities having been given to him for this purpose, that as per the evidence side, the Court has got power to verify the signatures and the experts opinion need not be considered as final and if at all the experts evidence is taken, it can be considered only as an additional evidence in the case and hence the order of the trial Court need not be interfered with and I accordingly confirm the same.