K RAGHU Vs. S RAJENDRA KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Ext. D1 receipt said to be issued or passed by the complainant in C.C. No. 528 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumangad was sought to be sent to the handwriting expert for expert opinion by filing an application, C.M.P. No. 656 of 2002 and the prayer made in that petition by the revision petitioner was rejected or declined by the learned Magistrate on the ground that that receipt is dated 12.2.1999 and the alleged transaction of borrowal of Rs. 1,20,000/- from the complainant by the revision petitioner (petitioner in the C.M.P.) was on 20.9.1999. Learned Magistrate accepted the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant (1st respondent herein) that from that fact it is evident that Ext. D1 is created by the accused revision petitioner. The other ground to reject the prayer made by the accused revision petitioner is that there are other modes of proving Ext. D1 such as comparison of Ext. D1 with the admitted handwriting of the complainant by the Court under S.73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri. Unnikrishnan vehemently urged before me that the Magistrate passed an erroneous order by declining to send Ext. D1 to handwriting expert for expert opinion. Counsel submitted that the evidence on record justifies a conclusion that there were other transactions between the parties and the amount due to the complainant, ie. Rs. 1,60,000/- under various transactions between the parties were paid by the revision petitioner to the complainant as early as on 12.2.1999 in total discharge of the liability of the revision petitioner to the complainant / 1st respondent. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that there are materials to prove the revision petitioners case that there were other transactions between the parties and on the date of issuing Ext. D1 receipt the liability to be discharged by the revision petitioner under various transactions between him and 1st respondent was Rs. 16,000/-. He submitted that two blank cheques signed by the revision petitioner were issued by him to the complainant and one of the cheques has been made use of by the complainant to file this complaint.