Dismissed

S. Kandasamy, 43 Yrs, v. M.K. Senthilkumar

Madras HC23 Aug 2021CRL RC/1302/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Revision was dismissed by the Madras High Court against an order rejecting the accused's prayer for forensic signature comparison. The Court held that since the signature was admitted in cross-examination, the petition was filed merely to delay proceedings and lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

S. Kandasamy, 43 Yrs, Vs M.K. Senthilkumar — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

(Reserved on : 16.08.2021)

¶3

(Pronounced on : 23.08.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.1302 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.12661 of 2017

¶7

S.Kandasamy ... Petitioner

¶8

.. Vs ..

¶9

M.K.Senthilkumar ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER:

¶11

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the order in C.M.P.No.1197 of 2017 in S.T.C.No.216 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate and Fast Track Court, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District set aside the same.

¶12

The criminal revision is filed by the accused in the cheque dishonor case. During trial in S.T.C.No.216 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate and Fast Track Court, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District, for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶13

When the matter is posted for defence witness, they filed C.M.P.No.1197 of 2017 for comparison of the signature found in the cheque with that of the admitted signature of the accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode has observed that the revision petitioner-accused has not issued any reply legal notice. Even during the cross-examination of P.W.1, the

¶14

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

¶15

signature is admitted and what was disputed in the cross of P.W.1 is that the unfilled cheque was subsequently filled up and hence dismissed the C.M.P.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶17

This revision is filed against the order of rejection made in C.M.P.No.1197 of 2017 filed by the accused to send the cheque for comparison of the signature to the Forensic Department.

¶18

In the cross-examination of P.W.1, the signature is already admitted by the accused and even the accused has not disputed the signature in the reply notice. During the crossexamination, it is a specific plea of the accused that the signature is doubtful but not disputed the signature. In the absence of the same, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that this petition was filed only with a view to drag on the proceedings and the matter was posted during the final hearing of the accused and hence, I find that there is no merits in this case.

¶19

On perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is only stated that P.W.1 was confronted with question that signature is admitted only contents has been subsequently filled up by P.W.1 and hence I find no merits in this revision.

¶20

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P is closed.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

nvi

¶25

¶26

The Judicial Magistrate and Fast Track Court, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.M.Senthilkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.42600

¶28

Crl.R.C.No.1302 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.12661 of 2017 SS(CO) CS/20/09/2021

¶29

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

S. Kandasamy, 43 Yrs, v. M.K. Senthilkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Kandasamy, 43 Yrs, v. M.K. Senthilkumar

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

Dr.Soorya, M/a 20 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

A.Nagaraj, Vs S.Dhamodhara Prakash

Purushothaman Vs the State Rep by

K.Selvaraj Vs R.Ethiraj

P.Jayasundaram @ P.Jaya Vs J.Jayabharathy @ J.Jayapathi

Gunasekaran, S/O.Karuppaiah, Vs Kalaiselvi, S/O.Karupusamy