IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1699 of 2008() 1. SANTHOSH JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, Petitioner Vs 1. S. AJAYAN, S/O. SUKUMARAN, Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :SRI.TOM JOSE (PADINJAREKARA) For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :06/06/2008 O R D E R [ENTITY] , J. [CASE NUMBER] Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008. ORDER
The petitioner, who is the accused in [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Aluva, which is a prosecution under [SECTION] of the [ACT] involving a cheque for Rs.2 lakhs, challenges the order dated 20.02.2008 passed by the Magistrate dismissing his application filed as [CASE NUMBER] for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert for comparison of the signature and the other writings in the cheque.
2. The learned Magistrate as per impugned order dismissed the application holding that the cheque was one which was issued by the petitioner/accused as against an account maintained by him with the drawee bank and that the signature therein was not seen disputed by the petitioner as well. The learned Magistrate also took into account the failure on the part of the petitioner to send a reply to the statutory notice.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placing strong reliance on [PRECEDENT] submitted that this is a case in which the signature as well as the handwriting in the cheque have been denied by the accused and therefore the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the application for sending the cheque in question to the handwriting expert. He also submitted that even during examination under [SECTION] [ACT], the petitioner had denied the signature and the handwriting in the cheque in question.
4. I am afraid I cannot agree with the above submissions. Except alleging that the cheque was given in connection with a chitty transaction, the petitioner has not offered any satisfactory explanation as to how the complainant came into possession of the cheque leaf belonging to the accused. It is admittedly one issued by the drawee bank against an account maintained by the petitioner. His contention is that what was handed over was an unsigned, blank cheque leaf. No sensible person will take an unsigned, blank cheque leaf which is a worthless piece of paper which cannot even be used as security for being encashed in the event of breach of the undertaking, if any, given. The learned Magistrate was therefore justified in dismissing the application to send the cheuqe for examination by an expert. I am fortified in this conclusion by the decision in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]. No grounds. Dismissed.
[ENTITY], JUDGE.