Madras High Court
I.Selvanayagam vs Sms Syndicate on 9 July, 2012
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 09.07.2012 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.R.C.No.484 of 2006 I.Selvanayagam .. Petitioner Vs. SMS Syndicate, Rep. by Mr.S.Gnanasekar, S/o.S.M.Subramaniam, Age 32 years, S-7, II Floor, No.103, Nyniappa Naicken Street, Chennai - 600 003. .. Respondent Prayer :- Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records in respect of C.C.No.1972 of 1998 and set-aside the order dated 04.04.2006 passed in M.P.No.992 of 2006 by the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan For Respondent : Mr.C.Parthiban - - - ORDER
The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The respondent herein / complainant had levelled a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai, against the accused stating that the revision petitioner herein / accused had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, dated 19.12.1997, to and in his favour in order to discharge his legal liability. When the said cheque was presented in the complainant's account for collection, the same was returned with an endorsement of "account closed". Hence, the case has been filed.
2. At this juncture, the accused had filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.966 of 2006, to direct the Registry to send Ex.D-16, viz., Machine Delivery challan dated 22.12.1986, containing his signature to the Forensic Department as the document required by them pertaining to the period for the year 1986-1987. The said petition had been resisted by the complainant after filing counter statement. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the contentions raised in the affidavit of accused and counter statement of complainant, dismissed the said petition.
3. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the above revision has been filed.
4. The highly competent counsel, Mr.V.R.Venkatesan submits that the trial Court had committed an error apparent on the face of records, since the report was sent to the Forensic Department without receiving the petitioner's documents, viz,. Ex.D-16, which is pertaining to the year 1986-1987 and Ex.D-14 and D-18 and perusing the same for comparison. Further, the petitioner had filed a Memo before the trial Court and sought time for production of some more relevant documents in order to establish his case. The same was not considered. The trial Court ought to have sent the documents, viz., Ex.D-14, D-17 and D-18 along with complaint's documents viz., Exs.P1 and P3 for comparison. Further, the main contention raised by the accused was that his signature was a forged one. One Suresh Kumar had fraudulently operated the account and forged the petitioner's signature on the cheque and the alleged cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- was presented by the complainant. All these transactions had been done behind the back of the petitioner. The concerned bank had not followed the procedure for opening the new account. The said Suresh Kumar himself was an introducer opening the alleged bank account. The very competent counsel further submits that if the said document, i.e, D-16 is sent for expert opinion, the complainant would not be affected.
5. The very competent counsel, Mr.C.Parthiban submits that the complainant's statements were recorded and he was cross-examined also. Further, he had marked all the relevant documents numbering 9. On the side of the accused, 4 defence witnesses were examined and 20 exhibits were marked. Further, the accused had filed a petition under Section 47 of Evidence Act to send Exs.P2 and P3 along with defence documents D2, D3, D4, D15, D17 and D18 and it was allowed on 29.06.2001. On 21.11.2001, the said documents were sent to the Forensic Department. The Forensic Department had sent a letter to the trial Court and requested them to send the original documents D2, D3 and D4. The same was complied with. Further, the accused was granted time to produce Ex.D6 but the accused did not produce the same. In the meantime, the Forensic Department had sent its report. Under the circumstances, the trial Court had appropriately dismissed the said M.P. Now, the case is at a partly heard stage.
6.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the trial Court, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding dismissal of the petition. Further, the trial Court had given sufficient opportunity to the accused for producing the said document. This Court is of the view that the main case has been filed in the year 1998, but the accused has filed the said petition in the year 2006 and as such, there is an inordinate delay in filing of the petition. Hence, the trial Court's findings is an appropriate one and as such, the revision is dismissed. Accordingly ordered.
09.07.2012
r n s
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
To
The VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
George Town,
Chennai.
C.S.KARNAN, J
r n s
Crl.R.C.No.484 of 2006
09.07.2012