Dismissed

Sriram v. M/S.Safire Lithographers

Madras HC8 Jun 2018CRL RC/1281/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed against an order in a cheque bounce case. It held that visible date alterations did not require forensic examination and signature comparison of a defence voucher fell within the realm of appreciation of evidence. The case was remanded for independent disposal.

What did the court decide?

The revision was dismissed; no forensic examination ordered; the lower court directed to independently assess merits and dispose of the complaint within one month.

Sriram Vs M/S.Safire Lithographers — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.06.2018

¶3

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶4

Criminal Revision No.1281 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶5

Sriram Proprietor M/s.Aalayam Televisions, No.13, Prithvi Avenue, 1^st Street, Abiramapuram, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. ... Petitioner(Accused) Versus M/s.Safire Lithographers Represented by Mr.Sivaprakash No.31, Balaji Street, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. ... Respondent(Complainant)

¶6

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 R/w 401 Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in C.C.No.4437 of 2004 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and set aside the order of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai passed in Crl.M.P.No.739 of 2011 dated 13.07.2011 in C.C.No.4437 of 2004

¶7

This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated 13.07.2011 made in M.P.No.739 of 2011, which was filed by the petitioner/accused with the prayer (i) the cheque in dispute be sent for the examination by the Government forensic expect to find out whether the date of the cheque is altered by way of an over writing and to (ii) send the Exhibit D-3, Voucher and the

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

admitted signature of DW-1 in his evidence as well as in the Exhibit D-2, for the comparison by a handwriting expert and to seek his opinion to find out whether the signature in D-2, D-3 and in the evidence of DW-1 are one and the same.

¶10

The learned Magistrate in the order under question has found that the alteration in the date of cheque is visible and it does not require an expert opinion. Further finding of the learned Magistrate is that the signature of DW1, namely the manager of the Complainant cannot be compared from the available documents and hence, on that ground, the second prayer was also rejected.

¶11

It is a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 2004 and it is seen that the Crl.M.P.No.739 of 2011 has been filed only in the year 2011 almost at the fag end of the trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that the voucher and also the cheque which is the subject matter of the complaint, have already been marked in the course of trial.

¶12

Insofar as the cheque is concerned, the learned Magistrate has found that the correction is visible and I do not find any merit to interfere with the findings. Insofar as the voucher is concerned, there is no need to send it for comparing the signatures, since if ultimately the entire liability revolves around this voucher which has been filed to support the defence of the petitioner/accused, it falls within the realm of appreciation of evidence and therefore, it is not necessary to send this voucher for comparison of signature.

¶13

This Court finds no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate, since this Court does not find any palpable error or non-compliance of the provisions of any law or any perversity in the order passed by this learned Magistrate.

¶14

The Complaint is of the year 2004 and it is stated to be at the stage of final arguments. There shall be a direction to the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai to assess independently the merits of the case projected by either side without being influenced by this Order and dispose of the complaint in C.C.No.4437 of 2004 in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

In the result, the Criminal Revision is disposed of with the above directions.

¶17

Registry of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai is directed to report the compliance, after the disposal of the complaint to this Court. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
nl
To
1.The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2.-do- Thro' The Chief Metropolitan, Egmore, Chennai-8.
3.The public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Copy to: The Section Officer,
Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.M. Mohammed, Advocate Sr.36718
Criminal Revision No.1281 of 2011
and M.P.No.1 of 2011
SV(CO)
EU(28/06/2018 )

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sriram v. M/S.Safire Lithographers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sriram v. M/S.Safire Lithographers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anandaprabhu, Aged 32 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Jaikumar Vs T.Brindha

A.Palaiyan, Vs D.Helen Latha

Mrs.Lakshmi Vs Mr.M.K.Krishnan

T.Ravichandran Vs the Inspector of Police

Syed Usman Vs Nasreen Banu