IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4764 of 2010() ------------------------------------ ( CMP. NO. 5015/2010 IN CC.517/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA) .................... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- ABHILASH.P.V., S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 30 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, RIGHT SOLUTIONS, ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT PULIKKIYIL HOUSE, KAVUMKAL MURI, MANNANCHERRY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 538. BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATES: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. G.MOHANAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 35 YEARS, VELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, THUMBOLI WARD, ARYAD SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 542. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V.PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4764 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 6th December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the complainant in C.C.517/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Alappuzha filed C.M.P.5015/2010 at the defence evidence stage to send the dishonoured cheque to an expert contending that the report of the expert would establish that handwriting in the dishonoured cheque is that of the petitioner. By Annexure-A1 order, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 order contending that Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act enables the court to send the dishonoured cheque to an expert Crmc 4764/10 2 even at the defence evidence stage and dismissal of the application would disentitle the petitioner to let in the best evidence and hence the order is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel made available copy of the deposition of the petitioner as PW1 as well as that first respondent as DW1. It is seen from the deposition of PW1 that when PW1 deposed in chief examination that first respondent in his presence wrote the dishonoured cheque and signed it and thereafter handed it over to PW1, first respondent denied the case and disputed the handwriting. In such circumstances, if necessary petitioner should have sought evidence of an expert by sending the dishonoured cheque to an expert for his opinion then and the application should have been filed Crmc 4764/10 3 at that stage. Complainant is not entitled to let in evidence after the defence evidence is over. Though Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that Court is competent to send the cheque for opinion of an expert at any stage, it is for the Court to decide and not for the complainant to dictate. I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-A1 order. Petitioner is at liberty to challenge Annexure-A1 order along with the judgment, if it goes against him. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.