2008 (2) TMI 957 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Scope of the powers of a Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) to refer cheques to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) for handwriting analysis.
2. Validity of the trial court's decision to refer cheques for handwriting analysis after an earlier order rejecting such a request became final.
3. Whether the cheques should have been referred for handwriting analysis at all.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope of the Powers of a Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) to Refer Cheques to CFSL for Handwriting Analysis:
The primary issue addressed in this judgment is whether an MM, after having previously dismissed an application to refer cheques for handwriting analysis, can later suo motu refer the same cheques to the CFSL. The court emphasized that the MM's powers are governed by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The judgment highlights that while the MM has broad powers to ensure justice, these powers must be exercised within the legal framework and cannot contravene established judicial orders.

2. Validity of the Trial Court's Decision to Refer Cheques for Handwriting Analysis After an Earlier Order Rejecting Such a Request Became Final:
The court examined the earlier order dated 8th March 2006, where the MM rejected the request to send the cheques for handwriting analysis. This order became final when the respondent's revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The court held that once an order has attained finality, it is not open for the MM to revisit the issue and refer the cheques for handwriting analysis at a later stage. The court stated, "The aforementioned order expressly rejects such request without any qualification," and emphasized that allowing the MM to reconsider would amount to an impermissible review of his own or his predecessor's order.

3. Whether the Cheques Should Have Been Referred for Handwriting Analysis at All:
The court also addressed whether the cheques should have been referred for handwriting analysis based on the merits of the case. It was argued that the mere fact that the payee's name and amount were in different handwriting did not invalidate the cheques. The court cited precedents, including the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Lillykutty v. Lawrance, which held that "the mere fact that the payee's name and the amount shown in the cheque are in different handwriting is not a reason for not honouring the cheque by the Bank." The court concluded that the earlier order dated 8th March 2006, which declined to refer the cheques for handwriting analysis, was valid and did not require review.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, setting aside the MM's subsequent order dated 14th September 2006, which referred the cheques for handwriting analysis. The court directed the trial court to proceed to the next stage of the trial expeditiously. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to final judicial orders and the limited scope of an MM's powers to revisit issues already decided.