CRL OP/28074/2026 of A.Ravi Bharath Vs N.Unnekrishnan on 14 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.07.2026 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.R.C. No. 23 of 2026, thereby confirming the order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the learned XVI Small Causes Court-cum-Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, in Crl.M.P. No. 145 of 2025 in S.T.C. No. 1033 of 2021, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking production of the accused's Voter Identity Card bearing his admitted signature for comparison with the disputed signature found on the cheque, by invoking Sections 45 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

2. The petitioner, who is the complainant, lodged a complaint against the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that on 30.06.2016, the respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from him for business purposes and had agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In connection with the said transaction, the respondent had also executed a promissory note in favour of the petitioner. Towards repayment of the principal amount together with accrued interest, the respondent allegedly issued a cheque. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned dishonoured with the endorsement “signature differs”. Thereafter, upon issuance of the statutory notice, the petitioner __________

( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 03:00:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 28074 of 2026 instituted the complaint, which was taken cognizance of by the learned trial Court. While pending trial, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 45 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking production of the respondent's Voter Identity Card bearing his admitted signature, for comparison with the disputed signature found on the cheque and for forwarding the same to the Forensic Department for expert opinion. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, and the order of dismissal was subsequently confirmed by the learned Revisional Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent orders, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Original Petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

4. Upon perusal of the records and consideration of the submissions made on either side, it is seen that the learned Trial Court had already allowed an application filed by the complainant to forward the cheque for forensic examination, for the purpose of comparing the signature found in Ex. P1 with the admitted signature of the respondent. The complainant had also filed another application seeking a direction to the accused to furnish his admitted signatures available in official records, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. However, the Trial Court had already issued a subpoena to the bank concerned to produce the admitted signature of the accused. While so, the complainant __________

( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 03:00:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 28074 of 2026 found a true copy of the respondent's Voter Identity Card, bearing his signature, which had allegedly been furnished to the complainant at the time of borrowing the loan. Hence, the complainant sought to produce the said document for the purpose of forwarding it to the Forensic Laboratory for comparison with the disputed signature on the cheque. The specific case of the accused is that he had handed over a blank cheque, without his signature, to the complainant for obtaining a sub-distributorship for Pediasure powder and a sub-stockist arrangement for Aircel SIM card business. Owing to disputes that subsequently arose between them, the complainant forged his signature on the cheque and initiated the present proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. The signature found on the disputed cheque appears to differ from the signatures of the accused available in other documents. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant has produced a photocopy of the accused's Voter Identity Card and seeks to have the signature appearing therein compared with the disputed signature on the cheque, even though the said document was produced nearly seven years after the institution of the complaint. Further the complainant is an Advocate and is also engaged in the dealership business involving Pediasure products and Aircel SIM cards. The documents, including the cheque, were handed over to the complainant in connection with obtaining a sub-distributorship and a sub-stockist arrangement. __________

( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 03:00:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 28074 of 2026 When their business relationship deteriorated and the accused sought the return of those documents, disputes arose between them. However, the complainant subsequently misused the cheque and instituted the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by forging his signature. It is also significant that the cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement “signature differs”. The cheque was subsequently presented again and was returned for the same reason. In such circumstances, the disputed signature on the cheque ought to be compared with an admitted signature of the accused, rather than with another signature whose authenticity is itself disputed.

6. In the present case, the Voter Identity Card was produced by the complainant, and the accused disputes the signature appearing therein, specifically denying that it is his signature. Therefore, the signature appearing on the said document cannot, merely by virtue of its presence on the Voter Identity Card, be treated as an admitted signature of the accused. The circumstances surrounding the production of the document, particularly its non- production along with the original complaint and its belated production after nearly seven years, also require consideration.

7. In view of the above circumstances, the learned Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application seeking to forward the photocopy of the Voter Identity Card for forensic comparison, and the learned Revisional Court __________

( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 03:00:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 28074 of 2026 rightly confirmed the said order. Further, the present Criminal Original Petition, which challenges the concurrent findings of the Courts below, cannot be permitted to operate as a second revision in substance. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality warranting interference with the orders passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned Revisional Court.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No vrc __________

( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 03:00:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 28074 of 2026 To

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.

2. The XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. __________

( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 03:00:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 28074 of 2026 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. vrc CRL OP No. 28074 of 2026 & Crl.M.P.No.18697 of 2026 14-10-2026 __________

( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 03:00:46 pm )