2000 (12) TMI 932 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

The petitioner, Rajendran, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking direction for the trial court to send a cheque dated 3.11.1997 to a handwriting expert to determine the age of the signature, date, and writings on the cheque. The background of the case involved a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner, alleging that the cheque was dishonored. The petitioner claimed that the cheque was issued in 1995 to the complainant's husband, who later passed away, and the complainant subsequently filled in the details on the cheque to falsely implicate him. The trial court and the Sessions Court dismissed the petitioner's application, leading to the present petition.The court first addressed the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, noting that it was not maintainable against the order passed by the Sessions Court in revision, as it would amount to a second revision. Consequently, the court found the petition liable to be dismissed on this ground.Regarding the merits of the case, the court rejected the petitioner's contention. The court highlighted that the petitioner's new version of events, introduced belatedly during the trial, was an abuse of the legal process. The court emphasized that once the execution of the cheque was admitted, it was deemed issued by the accused in favor of the complainant, regardless of who filled in the details on the cheque. The court cited precedent to support the principle that the signature of the drawer is crucial in negotiable instruments, and the body writing is not of significant importance.The court also noted that the petitioner had ample opportunity to present his defense during the trial, and the application to send the cheque to a handwriting expert was an attempt to delay the proceedings. The court condemned the petitioner's conduct as an abuse of the legal process and imposed costs of Rs. 2,500 on the petitioner. Additionally, the trial court was directed to prioritize the case, continue the trial without further delay, and dismiss related criminal miscellaneous petitions.In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, imposed costs on the petitioner for abusing the legal process, and directed the trial court to expedite the trial proceedings.