IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3810 of 2007() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/10/2007 IN CRMP.153/07 IN ST.649/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, IDUKKI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------- SINDHU LOHITHADAS, W/O.LOHITHADAS, SANTHI NIKETHAN, THOTTAKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. C.K.MANOJ KUMAR, S/O.C.I.KUMAR, DAZZLE FILM CIRCUTE, RAMKEEYAM, VALAJAMBALAM, U.C.COLLEGE, P.O.ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR FOR R2 SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ====================================== CRL.R.P. NO.3810 OF 2007 ====================================== Dated this the 29th day of May 2008 ORDER Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner, who is the accused in S.T.649/2006 on the file of JFCM-II Idukki, which is a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, involving a cheque for Rs.5,05,000/-, after the defence evidence was over, filed a petition on 26.5.2007 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act requesting the Magistrate to send Ext.P11 agreement to the handwriting expert for comparison alleging that it was a fabricated document. On 26.6.2007, the said petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter the petitioner filed CMP 153/2007 before the Magistrate under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking to reopen the evidence and to review the order dated 26.6.2007. As per the impugned order dated 15.10.2007 the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition as not maintainable presumably in view of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. It is the said order which is assailed in CRL.R.P.3810/2007 2 this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that CMP 153/2007 was filed under Section 311 read with Section 45 of the Evidence Act, essentially for reviewing the order dated 26.6.2007 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the petition filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the disputed document to the expert. In view of Section 362 Cr.P.C., there cannot be any review of an order passed by the Magistrate unless it be to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Hence the impugned order dated 15.10.2007 passed in CMP 153/2007 in S.T.649/2007 does not call for any interference. Admittedly the order dated 26.6.2007 passed by the Magistrate rejecting the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act has become final. This revision is, accordingly, dismissed. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE css/ CRL.R.P.3810/2007 3