IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1959 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/06/2008 IN CMP.3218/2008 IN CC.16/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: -------------------------------- ALEX JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, KATTARATH HOUSE, PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. E.C.JOSEPH S/O.CHACKO, ILLATH HOUSE, POONJAR THEKKEKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.1959 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17 th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.16 of 2007 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Erattupetta which is a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenges the order dated 03.06.08 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the application (CMP No.3218/2008) filed by the petitioner to send the cheque in question for expert opinion to the hand writing expert to ascertain whether the date 30.5.03 had been corrected as 30.5.06. 2. According to the petitioner, the cheque in question with the date put on it was given by him to the complainant as a signed blank cheque in relation to an earlier transaction and that transaction was closed in the year 2003 or 2004. The petitioner would contend that the date put on the cheque as 30.5.2003 was corrected as 30.05.2006 and the present complaint was filed. 3. Even according to the petitioner the earlier transaction was closed in the year 2003 or 2004. But the fact remains that Crl.R.P.No.1959 of 2008 2 the petitioner did not care to get back the cheque for three or four years. The present complaint was filed in the year 2007. As rightly observed by the court below the request of the petitioner was not for comparing his admitted handwriting with the hand writing in the cheque in question but for ascertaining whether there is correction in the date. As rightly observed by the court below, the petitioner can adduce other evidence in support of his contentions and the court below also can examine the cheque in question, at the appropriate stage and come to its own conclusion. I make it clear that if the trial court, after examining the cheque in question and after considering the contentions of the parties, entertains a genuine doubt as to whether the date has been corrected, this order will not preclude that court from sending the cheque for expert opinion. This Crl.R.P is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj