- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Neelakantappa v. M. Munirathnam & Anr.
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner, which was registered as C.C No. 482 of 2002. The petitioner filed Crl. M.P No. 1530 of 2004 seeking to send the dishonoured cheque to a Handwriting Expert for comparison with his admitted signature on the Vakalath. The respondent countered, requesting that if the cheque was sent for expert opinion, additional documents containing the petitioner’s admitted signatures, such as summons, specimen signatures from the bank, and personal service records from APSRTC, be sent as well.
By order dated 15.04.2004, the learned Magistrate allowed Crl. M.P No. 1530 of 2004 and directed the dishonoured cheque and the petitioner’s signatures taken in open court to be sent to the Expert. Subsequently, the respondent filed Crl. M.P No. 3152 of 2004 seeking permission to send further documents (Vakalath, summons, specimen signatures from the bank, etc.) for comparison with the disputed signature on the cheque. Despite the petitioner’s opposition, the Magistrate allowed this petition. The petitioner challenged this order through the present petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the order allowing the sending of additional documents for expert comparison (Crl. M.P No. 3152 of 2004) amounted to a review of the earlier order passed in Crl. M.P No. 1530 of 2004, which the trial court lacked jurisdiction to do.
- Whether the additional documents containing admitted signatures could be legitimately sent to the handwriting expert for comparison with the disputed signature on the dishonoured cheque.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner contended that the Magistrate’s order in Crl. M.P No. 1530 of 2004 only allowed sending the signatures taken in open court for expert examination and thereby implicitly rejected the respondent’s counter-request to send other documents containing admitted signatures.
- Filing a separate petition (Crl. M.P No. 3152 of 2004) to send additional documents was impermissible as it effectively amounted to reviewing the earlier order, which the trial court had no power to do.
- The order allowing Crl. M.P No. 3152 of 2004 should therefore be set aside.
Respondent’s Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments beyond the counter-request to send additional documents for expert comparison.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court rejected the petitioner’s contention that allowing Crl. M.P No. 3152 of 2004 amounted to reviewing the earlier order. The operative portion of the earlier order showed that the Magistrate had only directed sending the cheque and admitted signatures taken in court, without expressly considering or rejecting the respondent’s counter-request for sending other documents.
The court noted that signatures on the Vakalath or those taken in open court cannot be strictly considered admitted signatures for comparison, as they could be disguised. In contrast, signatures on documents such as those made while opening the bank account, summons, postal acknowledgments, and service registers—signed before the dispute arose—are admitted signatures suitable for expert comparison.
Therefore, the Magistrate’s order allowing the sending of these additional documents for comparison with the disputed signature on the dishonoured cheque was justified and did not warrant interference.
Holding and Implications
The petition is dismissed.
The direct effect of this decision is the upholding of the Magistrate’s order permitting the respondent to send additional documents containing admitted signatures to the handwriting expert for comparison. The opinion does not establish any new precedent or broader legal principle beyond the facts of this case.
1. Respondent filed a private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner, which was taken cognizance as C.C No. 482 of 2002 by the learned Magistrate. In that case, the petitioner filed Crl. M.P No. 1530 of 2004 to send the dishonoured cheque, to a Hand-writing Expert for-comparison with his admitted signature on the Vakalath. First respondent filed a counter contending that in case the Court were to allow the said petition, served copy of summons, specimen signatures of the petitioner available in the bank account and personal service records in APSRTC, Adoni which contain the admitted signatures of the petitioner also may be sent to an Expert.
2. By the order dated 15.04.2004, the learned Magistrate allowed Crl. M.P No. 1530 of 2004 and directed the dishonoured cheque, and the signatures of the petitioner taken in open court be sent to an Expert for his opinion. Thereafter, first respondent filed Crl. M.P No. 3152 of 2004 seeking leave of the Court to send the Vakalath, summons, signatures of the petitioner on 313 Cr.PC, specimen signatures of the petitioner in the bank at the time of opening of the account etc. also for comparison with the disputed signature of the petitioner on the dishonoured cheque to the Expert. In spite of opposition by the petitioner, by the order impugned in this petition the learned Magistrate allowed the aforesaid Crl. M.P No. 3152 of 2004. Hence this petition challenging the said order.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since first respondent had in Crl. M.P No. 1530 of 2004 took a plea that in case the dishonoured cheque is to be sent to an expert for his opinion, the documents mentioned in his counter also be sent 25 to the Expert, but since the learned Magistrate while allowing the said petition directed sending of the signatures of the petitioner only for comparison with the signatures on the dishonoured cheque it should be deemed that the request made in the counter of first respondent was negatived and so first respondent filing a separate petition to send some more documents to Expert for comparison with the disputed signature is not maintainable because allowing of that petition tantamounts to reviewing the earlier order passed in Crl. M.P No. 1530 of 2004 and since the trial court has no power to review its earlier order, the order allowing Crl. M.P No. 3152 of 2004 is liable to be set aside.
4. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that allowing of Crl. M.P No. 3152 of 2004 tantamounts to reviewing the earlier order passed in Crl. M.P No. 1530 of 2004, the operative portion of which reads:
“this is a trial court all opportunities shall be given to parties, since the accused denied the signature on the cheque involved in the present case therefore, it is just and necessary to send the cheque with that of the admitted signatures taken in the court and also the signature on the Vakalath. In the result, the petition is allowed and send the cheque along with admitted signatures of the accused to the Hand writing Expert for comparison and opinion to Hand-writing Expert, Director of R.F.S.L, Hyderabad.”
5. From the above order it is seen that the learned Magistrate did not even take into consideration the request of the first respondent to send the documents which contain the admitted signatures of the petitioner. Had the learned Magistrate considered the request of the first respondent in the counter and negatived that request, there might have been some force in the contention of the petitioner that the order impugned amounts to reviewing its earlier order. Since there is every possibility for a party to disguise his signatures in the Vakalath or memo of appearance and while signing in open court, signature on the Vakalath (memo of appearance) and the signatures taken in the open court, strictly cannot be taken as admitted signatures for purpose of comparison with disputed signature. The signatures made while opening of the bank account and on the summons and on the postal acknowledgment, service register etc. made, when the dispute did not arise would be admitted signatures fit for comparison with the disputed signature. So the learned Magistrate directing the signatures on the documents mentioned in Crl. M.P No. 3152 of 2001 being sent for comparison with the signature on the dishonoured cheque, does not warrant any interference and so I find no grounds quash the order dated 16.08.2004 in Crl. M.P No. 3152 of 2004.
6. Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Alert