IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 169 of 2008() ------------------------ CRMP.154/2008 IN C.C.761 OF 2006 of JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-I (FOREST OFFENCES), THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------- SUNNY MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, THODPUZHA KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT NO.1: ------------------------------------------ 1. BABY THOMAS @ THOMAS THOMAS, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, NEELOOR P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSRI.GIKKU JACOB SRI.JAISON JOSEPH FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.169 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.5.45 lakhs. Notice of demand was returned unclaimed. Prosecution was launched in 2006. Evidence of the complainant is over. 313 examination of the accused is also over. Accused examined himself. Later, two applications were filed. They were dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner has come to this Court and it is submitted that the said Crl.M.P was allowed and the petitioner was permitted to file an application to examine himself as a witness. Later an application was filed to forward the cheque to the expert. That application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate as per Annexure-A2 order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Handing over of the cheque is also not disputed. Transaction is also admitted. It is accepted that an amount of Rs.4 lakhs was received by the accused from the complainant and the cheque was issued by the Crl.M.C.No.169 of 2008 2 accused to the complainant after affixing his signature. It is, of curse, contended that it was a blank signed cheque which was handed over. 3. The petitioner's application to send the cheque to the expert was rejected by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order on the ground that it is belated and that it is calculated to delay the trial. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant had asserted that the handwriting in the cheque is that of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below must have accepted the request of the petitioner to send the cheque to the expert 5. The complainant has entered appearance. Counsel contends that there is no merit whatsoever in the application to forward the cheque to the expert. The petitioner has been absconding for a long time. He did not ever make an application in prompt time to forward the cheque to the expert. The complainant has asserted on oath that the handwriting in the cheque is that of the accused. But significantly there is no suggestion thrown at the complainant that the handwriting is not Crl.M.C.No.169 of 2008 3 that of the accused. Of course it is pointed out that there is blank denial of the complainant and it is suggested that a blank signed cheque handed over by the accused to the complainant is being misused. 6. I have heard both sides. The impugned order is a cryptic one. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am of opinion that it is not necessary to express any final opinion on the disputed contentions. The prayer is to set aside an order passed for forwarding the cheque to the expert. This order is certainly an interlocutory one and is not revisable. It is only a step in aid in the matter of proof of the respective contentions raised in the case. Revisional challenge against the impugned order which is an interlocutory one is impermissible under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. That is why the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am of opinion that the impugned order does not warrant interference now invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But interests of justice shall be served eminently by observing that the petitioner's right to challenge the impugned order along with the final order to be passed by the learned Magistrate while finally disposing of the case shall be preserved. Crl.M.C.No.169 of 2008 4 7. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. However, I make it clear that the right of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order - if such challenge be necessary, along with the final order to be passed in C.C.761 of 2006, shall remain unfettered. The learned counsel for the petitioner wants it to be clarified that the petitioner's right to request the learned Magistrate to compare the handwriting in the cheque under Section 73 of the Evidence Act will also remain unfettered. It is so observed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-