IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 433 of 2011() ----------------------------------- C.C.1484/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------------------------------- RAJU, PARAVILA VEEDU, KULAKKADA KIZHAKKUMURI, KULAKKADA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.PREMSON PAUL SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SURESH KUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAN, HARSHALAYATHIL, CHIRATTAKONAM MURI, VETTIKKAVALA VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.433 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 11th day of February, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.1484 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottarakkara challenges Annexure-D, order dated January 5, 2011 on C.M.P.No.5684 of 2010 in C.C.No.1484 of 2009 refusing to send Exts.P1 to P3 cheques for expert opinion. 2. First respondent filed complaint against petitioner for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the Act”) based on dishonour of the cheques allegedly issued by petitioner. Petitioner has a contention that he had no transaction with first respondent, nor issued any cheque. When first respondent was examined as PW1, in the course of cross examination he stated that petitioner brought the three cheques filled up and signed the same in his presence. Thereon, petitioner filed C..M.P.No.5684 of 2010 as aforesaid. Learned Magistrate observed that first respondent did not say that cheques were written by the petitioner and hence it is not necessary to send the cheques for expert opinion. 3. Deposition of first respondent as PW1 is appended to this petition. I have gone through the deposition. I do not find any Crl.M.C.No.433 of 2011 -: 2 :- statement made by the first respondent that the cheques were written by the petitioner. Instead, he only said that petitioner brought the cheques filled up and signed it in his presence. The signature in Exts.P1 to P3 are not challenged. In the circumstance, it was not necessary that the cheques are send to the expert. Learned Magistrate has rightly disallowed the prayer. There is no reason to interfere. This criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-