IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 226 of 2008() ---------------------------- C.C. NO. 464/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, PERAMBRA PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT ------------------------------- P.M.CHACKO, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS, PALAKKULAM HOUSE, NARIKUZHI PLANTATIONS, KALLANOD P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED AND STATE ------------------------------------------- 1. P.P.KUNHIKRISHNAN, S/O.APPUKUTTY @ SANKARA MARAR, PUTHUKKUDIPATTA HOUSE, PANANGADU P.O., BALUSSERY VIA, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. STATE REP; BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 226 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who is the complainant in C.C. No. 464/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Perambra for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involving a cheque for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/-, challenges Annexure 3 order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the Magistrate allowing the request of the accused to send the cheque for comparison of the handwriting therein by an expert with the admitted handwriting of the accused. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner/complainant in his counter affidavit had admitted only that the accused had put his signature in the cheque writing his name in the presence of the complainant and from that alone it could not be inferred that the entire writings on the cheque were in the handwriting of the accused. But then, the petitioner while examined as PW1, deposed during his cross examination that the writings in the cheque are in the CRL. M.C. NO. 226/2008 : 2 : handwriting of the accused. This cannot obviously relate to the signature alone but the entire writings. In the light of the denial by the accused of having filled up the cheque and his only admission being with regard to the signature alone in the cheque, the Magistrate cannot be found fault with for sending the cheque to the expert for comparison. I see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C. NO. 226/2008 : 3 :