M SUBRAMANIAN Vs. C R THANGAVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1.Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order dated 27.9.2005, passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II-cum-Special Magistrate, Attur, in Crl.M.P.No,6067 of 2005 in C.C.No.125 of 2002.Animadverting upon the order dated 27.9.2005, passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II-cum-Special Magistrate, Attur, in Crl.M.P.No,6067 of 2005 in C.C.No.125 of 2002., this criminal revision case is focussed.

(2.) A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:-The respondent herein filed the C.C.No.125 of 2002 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II-cum-Special Magistrate, Attur, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the pendency of the case, Crl.M.P.No,6067 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner/accused, so as to enable him to get the assistance of a hand writing expert to examine and verify as to whether the signature found in the alleged receipt issued by the complainant is that of the complainant or not. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said order, this revision has been filed on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:-The learned Magistrate instead of giving due opportunity to the accused to put forth his defence, simply dismissed the prayer of the accused to take the assistance of the hand writing expert.

(3.) THE learned counsel on both sides, in unison would submit that on earlier occasion, a similar petition was filed by the accused for the purpose of taking the assistance of a hand writing expert and at that time, the lower Court dismissed the application on the ground that at the later stage this application would be considered. When the present criminal M.P.No,6067 of 2005 was filed for taking the assistance of the hand writing expert for the above said purpose, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the alleged receipt is having nothing to do with the proving of the offence by the complainant, as the Court was concerned only with the factum as to whether offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act was committed or not.