9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Pending trial, the respondent herein filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in Crl. M.P. No. 1687 of 2007 under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to send the documents, i.e., Exs. P2 to P9, to the Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert to find out the age of the signature, age of the writings in the body of the cheques, age of the signature of the petitioner/accused in the letter-head papers, age of the computerized written matter in Ex-P2 and to compare the signature of PW-3 with a specimen signature obtained from him in the Court and also with the signatures in the depositions. 2. The said Miscellaneous Petition was allowed by the learned Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ient reasons, the learned Additional District Munsif had allowed the said Miscellaneous Petition. 5. This Court has considered the above submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the records carefully. 6. According to the accused, the complainant has prepared a forged agreement in the letter-head signed blank papers and the cheques, Exs-P2 to P9, also contained the seal with the signatures of the accused, and later, it was filled up by the complainant. Even as per the affidavit filed in support of the petition by the accused before the Trial Court, the accused had admitted his signatures in Exs-P2 to P9. Further, according to the accused, the signatures of PW-3, who stood as a witness to Ex-P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Court to decide the issue. Ex-P2 has been signed by both PWs-2 and 3 as witnesses. However, the accused wants the signatures of PW-3 alone to be compared and not the signatures of PW-2. 8. In similar circumstances, this Court in Gopal v. D. Balachandran reported in 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 466 : 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 581 : 2008 (1) CTC 491 has held as follows :- 12. Following the aforesaid ratio, this Court has also held in P.R. Ramakrishnan v. P. Govindarajan, 2008(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 33:2007(1) MLJ (Crl) 1297, that when the accused disputes his signatures in the cheques in question in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court has to afford an opportunity to the accused to obtain an exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
