IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1589 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/03/2008 IN CMP.451/08 IN ST.361/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADIMALI .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- BIJESH, S/O.VIJAYAN, AGED 23, PALACKATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, THEKKINKANAM KARA, ELLACKAL P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.MABLE.C.KURIAN SRI.ARUN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MUHAMMED, S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 40, VAZHASSERIYIL HOUSE, CHEKUTHANMUKKU KARA, PALLIVASAL VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.1589 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11 th day of April, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who is the accused in S.T.No.361/2007 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Adimaly which is a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the strength of a cheque involving Rs.2,50,000/-, challenges the order dated 29.3.08 passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the petitioner’s application to send Ext.P1 cheque to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of the signature and other writings in the cheque. According to the petitioner, he was a sales man in the shop owned by the complainant and the complainant had demanded a blank cheque as security from him and since he did not oblige the latter, the complainant had taken a blank cheque from the mother of the petitioner after approaching her at the house of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the cheque in question does not contain his signature or writings. The petitioner claims to have filed a petition before the learned Magistrate for citing three witnesses including the Crl.M.C.No. 1589 of 2008 2 Bank Manager with a request to bring the specimen signature card from the drawee bank. If the petitioner adduces other evidence before the learned Magistrate and if at that stage, the Magistrate is inclined to accept the petitioner’s contention that the cheque in question does not contain his signature and that the signature on the cheque is a forged one, the order dated 29.3.08 passed by the learned Magistrate in CMP No.451/2008 shall not preclude the petitioner from filing a similar application, if so advised. Reserving the above right this Crl.M.C is disposed of. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj