Madras High Court
Pattabi Reddiar vs M.Sudhakaran on 29 July, 2013
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29 / 07 /2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.R.C.No.1181 of 2007 Pattabi Reddiar .. Petitioner Vs. M.Sudhakaran .. Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Arcot, dated 27.04.2007 made in C.M.P.S.R.No.594A of 2007 in C.M.P.No.44 of 2006 in C.C.No.97 of 2005. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Jeremiah For Respondent : No appearance ******* O R D E R
The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The respondent/complainant has filed a case in C.C.No.97 of 2005, against the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. During the trial, the petitioner has filed an application in C.M.P.No.44 of 2006 in C.C.No.97 of 2005 to send for the records to the Forensic Department to ascertain the disputed signature in Ex.P2, i.e., pronote dated 02.02.2003. After contest, the said C.M.P.No.44 of 2006 was allowed on 14.09.2006. As per the order, the disputed signature in Ex.P2 was to be compared with the admitted signature of the accused in cheque bearing No.532225 and that of the signature of the petitioner in C.M.P.No.44 of 2006. Therefore, in compliance of the order under the Dis.No.399 of 2007, dated 28.02.2007, the trial Court had forwarded the disputed signature affixed in the pronote dated 02.02.2003, Ex.P2, 20 specimen signatures of the accused Pattabiraman obtained in the open Court and signature of the accused Pattabiraman in the postal acknowledgment dated 28.04.2005, for the summons sent to the accused through R.P.A.D and cheque dated 12.03.2005 for Rs.1,50,000/-, i.e., Ex.P1. Those documents were indexed with the serial Nos.1, 3 and 4 the admitted signature has to be compared with that of the document ear marked in serial No.2. On receipt of the documents, the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Department was pleased to address this Court in their letter No.DOC.107/07, dated 06.03.2007 calling for compliance, wherein it was stated that " I wish to state that some more (above 5-10) admittedly genuine English signatures of the person called "R.Pattabi Reddiar" made in the ordinary course of business on existing document like deeds, vouchers, receipts, letters etc., preferably made during the period 2002-03 may be procured and forwarded to this Department for the purpose of examination. The case taken up for examination on receipt of said further material".
2. The learned counsel for the defence has noticed the requisition made by the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Department. Without compliance with the terms of request the petitioner has filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to send for the documents available in O.S.No.6 of 2000 before the Sub Court, Ranipet and some other document available with Mrs.Susee Agencies, Katpadi. The document required by the Forensic Department is likely to be in the hands of the petitioner and without producing the document, the petitioner has come forward with the application to summon the document under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is in the habit of filing an application one after the other to drag on the proceedings and as such, there is no bona-fide on the part of the petitioner, therefore, the trial Court, dismissed the petition in C.M.P.S.R.No.594A/07 at the threshold itself. Further, the petitioner was directed to comply with the submission of Lr.No.DOC.107/07, dated 06.03.2007 from the Forensic Department within 15 days time, failing which, C.M.P.No.44 of 2006, dated 14.09.2006 would stand dismissed for non-compliance of terms.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the above revision has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the learned Magistrate without numbering the petition, dismissed the same. It was submitted that this petition was a necessary corollary for passing orders in C.M.P.No.44 of 2006. The learned Magistrate failed to note that the expert to whom the pronote was sent had requested for the admitted signature of the petitioner relating to the year 2002-2003. The petitioner has filed the petition to summon the documents which contain the admitted signature of the petitioner herein and available in the Court records in O.S.No.600 of 2002 pending before the Sub Court, Ranipet. The learned counsel further submitted that if the petitioner's request is not complied with in unnumbered C.M.P.S.R.No.594A of 2007, then the earlier order passed in C.M.P.No.44 of 2006 would be rendered infructuous. Unless the required documents are produced before the expert, he would not be in a position to carry out his assignment and render an opinion. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to set-aside the learned Judge's order.
5. On verifying the facts of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on perusing the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the impugned order. This Court is of the further view that the petitioner was granted relief in C.M.P.No.44 of 2006 in C.C.No.97 of 2005, wherein the trial Court allowed the petitioner's prayer to send for the records to the Forensic Science Department to ascertain the disputed signature in Ex.P2, i.e., pronote dated 02.02.2003 and compare it with the admitted signature of the accused in cheque bearing No.532225. Therefore, the impugned order is appropriate, hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this revision.
6. In the result, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in C.M.P.S.R.No.594A of 2007 in C.M.P.No.44 of 2006 in C.C.No.97 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Arcot, dated 27.04.2007 is confirmed.
r n s To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Arcot