The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the Trial Court's refusal to allow a cheque signer to compare his signature on the cheque with a later-acknowledgment card, ruling that subsequent signatures cannot be used for comparison under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.
The revision petition was dismissed; the Trial Court's order was affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.12.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN
Crl.R.C.No. 820 of 2010 M.P.No. 1 of 2010
K.S.Moorthy ... Petitioner/Petitioner/ Accused Vs. G.Saravanan ... Respondent/Respondent/ Complainant
Prayer:- Petition filed under Section 397 & 401 of Crl.P.C. against the order dated 27.05.2010 made in C.M.P.No. 4531 of 2010 in S.T.C. No.3292 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondent : Mr.E.C.Ramesh
O R D E R
The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dismissing the petitioner's application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to compare the signature found in the Ex.P.1-cheque with the signature found in Ex.P.4-the acknowledgment card.
signature deliberately and now the trial has commenced and the complainant was also cross examined by the petitioner. Hence, the present application is not maintainable and it has been filed with a deliberate intention to drag on the proceedings.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar rts To The Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani.
+1cc to Mr.N.Manokaran, Advocate, S.R.No.72511 +1cc to Mr.E.C.Ramesh, Advocate, S.R.No.72389
Crl.R.C.No. 820 of 2010 M.P.No. 1 of 2010
ALA(CO) CA(05/01/2017)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner in a cheque-bouncing case can maintain an application to compare the signature on the cheque with a subsequent acknowledgment card signed after receiving a legal notice.
If the comparison sought would involve a signature made subsequent to the disputed document, whether the application can be said to be filed without bona fide intention.
Whether the Trial Court rightly dismissed the revision petition challenging the refusal to allow comparison of signatures.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
K.S.Moorthy
G.Saravanan
V. BHARATHIDASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
