IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 629 of 2008() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/01/2008 IN MP.6375/2007 IN CC.169/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------- K.K.BAIJU, S/O.KUNJU, AGED 32 YEARS, KOLANCHERY VEEDU, MATTOOR KARA, MATTOOR VILLAGE ALUVA TALUK (PROPRIETOR, FLASH RUBBER COMPANY CHEMBARAKKI, SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM P.O) BY ADV. SRI.RENNY AUGUSTINE RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------- 1. LALU, S/O.POULOSE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PADAYATTI VEEDU KAIPPATTOOR BHAGAM, KALADY KARA, KALADY VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 629 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No. 169/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involving a cheque for Rs.5,50,000/-, challenges the order dated 18.01.2008 in M.P.No. 6375/2007 as per which he sought the cheque in question to be forwarded to the handwriting expert for comparison with his admitted signatures. 2. The learned Magistrate after comparing the signatures in Ext.P1 agreement and Ext.P2 cheque with the admitted signatures of the accused in the bail bonds, vakalath, bail application, petition to recall NBW and 313 statement, came to the conclusion that there is hardly any variation between them except those within the range of natural variation. It was perfectly open to the trial Magistrate to compare the signatures by calling to his aid Section 73 of the Evidence Act. CRL.M.C.NO. 629/2008 : 2: 3. The petitioner/accused was absconding before the court below for a long time and his appearance itself was secured after considerable difficulty. His defence was that he had no transaction with the complainant; but the transaction was with somebody else and the cheque in question was misutilied. Admittedly, he did not send any reply to the statutory notice the receipt of which is denied by him. Under these circumstances, the court below was fully justified in refusing to send the cheque to the handwriting expert for comparison. The view taken by the learned Magistrate is consistent with the decisions reported in Francis v. Pradeep (2004(2) KLT 1080) and Baby Thomas v. T.T. Paul and another (2007(3) KHC 732). I see no ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate. This Crl. M.C is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.M.C.NO. 629/2008 : 3: