IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4654 of 2010() ------------------- CC.442/2004 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ETTUMANOOR ............... PETITIONER / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------ M.K.MICHAEL, MALIAKKEL HOUSE, NEENDOOR, ONAMTHURUTHU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MERCY MATHEW, W/O.MATHEW, POOZHIKUNNEL, GANDHI NAGAR JUNCTION, PERUMBAIKAD, KOTTAYAM. 3. MATHEW @ KUNJUMON, S/O.MANI KURUVILLA, VATTAMUKALEL, ADICHIRA, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 4. SIMON MANI @ SUNNY, S/O.MANI KURUVILLA, VATTAMUKALEL (KUTTUNKAL), ADICHIRA, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4654 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER The defacto complainant in C.C.No.442/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ettumanoor filed this petition for a direction to the learned Magistrate to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signatures as provided under Section 73 of Indian Evidence At and also to permit the petitioner to file an application to examine the expert who issued Annexure-6 certificate. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Case of the petitioner is that perusal of the signature seen in Annexure-2 with the signatures in Annexures-3 to 5 establish that signatures are not that of the same person and as Annexures-3 to 5 are the admitted/undisputed signatures of the defacto complainant, learned CRMC 4654/10 2 Magistrate may be directed to compare the signatures as provided under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, in the light of Annexure-6 report disclosing that comparison between the questioned and standards signatures could not be made as the design is different. 4. Annexure-6 report submitted by Assistant Director (Documents-Civil), Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram is to the effect that on a comparison of the specimen signatures with the signatures written in the normal course and the disputed questioned signatures, they are found to be entirely different from that of the standards supplied for comparison. The expert, therefore, opined that comparison between the questioned and standard documents could not be made. The report discloses that design of the questioned signatures is entirely different from the standards supplied. A perusal of the signature in Annexure-2 with the other signatures establish CRMC 4654/10 3 that fact. In such circumstances, it is for the learned Magistrate to compare the signatures as provided under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, as the expert did not give any conclusive opinion. Petitioner cannot be permitted to file an application as sought for, as such an application could be filed only by the Prosecutor. Petition is disposed. 21st December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv