Madras High Court
K.R.S.Jeevanantham vs R.A.Kumarasamy on 17 August, 2015
Author: R.Mala
Bench: R.Mala
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.08.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA
Criminal Original Petition(MD) No.3225 of 2010
K.R.S.Jeevanantham : Petitioner
Vs.
R.A.Kumarasamy : Respondent
Prayer
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to call for the records relating to order dated 23.04.2009 in
Cr.R.P.No.35 of 2008 on the file of learned District Sessions Judge,
Pudukottai, confirming the order dated 09.07.2008 in C.M.P.No.551 of 2007 in
S.T.C.No.14 of 2006 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai
and set aside the same.
!For Petitioner :Mr.J.Anand Kumar
^For Respondent :Mr.K.Baalasundharam
:ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with this petition challenging the impugned order dated 23.04.2009 in Cr.R.P.No.35 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the learned District Sessions Judge, Pudukottai, confirmed the order dated 09.07.2008 in C.M.P.No.551 of 2007 in S.T.C.No.14 of 2006 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, by setting aside the payment of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein, as an accused, is facing the criminal trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is the subscriber of the chit. While receiving chit amount, he has given certain documents to the respondent. When he demanded for return of the documents, the respondent herein has obtained a cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- and when it was presented for encashment, after making alteration of Rs.1,00,000/- into Rs.6,00,000/-, the cheque has been returned as 'insufficient funds'. The respondent issued a statutory notice, for which, the petitioner sent a reply, in which, he had stated that there is a material alteration in the cheque in question. Thereafter, the respondent lodged a complaint.
3. During the pendency of the complaint, the petitioner filed an application under Section 293 Cr.P.C. and after considering the merits of the case, the Trial Court dismissed the same and imposed a cost of Rs.1,000/-, against which, he preferred a revision before the revisional Court, wherein the finding of the trial Court has been confirmed, by setting aside the order relating to imposition of cost to the respondent alone. Aggrieved over the same, the present petition has been filed.
4. The only point that arises for consideration is as to whether the application under Section 293 Cr.P.C., is maintainable.
5. The revisional Court has correctly incorporated Section 293 Cr.P.C., and held that as to when Section 293 has to be invoked. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the document for Expert opinion and not under Section 293 Cr.P.C.
6. It is the well settled dictum of the Apex Court that Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has given power to the holder of the instrument to complete the document. Here, it was stated that numerical has been in one ink and writings have been in another ink. In such circumstances, I am of the view that as per Section 20, the holder is empowered to complete the instrument. In such circumstances, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold good. The Trial Court itself has correctly come to the conclusion that with a view to drag on the proceedings only, the petition under Section 293 Cr.P.C., has been filed. That has been correctly looked into by the revisional Court and as such, I am of the view that there is no reason much less justifiable reason to take a different view in the matter, by interfering with the findings of both the Courts below.
7. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
8. However, considering the fact that the case in S.T.C.No.14 of 2006 is pending right from 2006, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, is directed to dispose of the same, on merits and as per law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both parties are directed to co-operate for the early disposal.
To
1.The Court of District Sessions Judge, Pudukottai.
2.The Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai.
.