IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1699 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/02/2008 IN CMP.8525/2007 IN ST.339/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- SANTHOSH JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, KOTTARIKIL HOUSE, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE (PADINJAREKARA) RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------ 1. S. AJAYAN, S/O. SUKUMARAN, VAKAKKEMANIYANGATTU HOUSE, KOZHUVANAL P.O., KEZHUVANKULAM KARA, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 1699 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who is the accused in S.T. No. 339 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Aluva, which is a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 involving a cheque for Rs.2 lakhs, challenges the order dated 20.02.2008 passed by the Magistrate dismissing his application filed as C.M.P. No. 8525 of 2007 for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert for comparison of the signature and the other writings in the cheque. 2. The learned Magistrate as per impugned order dismissed the application holding that the cheque was one which was issued by the petitioner/accused as against an account maintained by him with the drawee bank and that the signature therein was not seen disputed by the petitioner as well. The learned Magistrate also took into account the failure on the part of the petitioner to send a reply to the statutory notice. CRL.R.P. NO. 1699/2008 : 2: 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placing strong reliance on Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam (2007 (1) SCC (Crl.) 577) submitted that this is a case in which the signature as well as the handwriting in the cheque have been denied by the accused and therefore the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the application for sending the cheque in question to the handwriting expert. He also submitted that even during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner had denied the signature and the handwriting in the cheque in question. 4. I am afraid I cannot agree with the above submissions. Except alleging that the cheque was given in connection with a chitty transaction, the petitioner has not offered any satisfactory explanation as to how the complainant came into possession of the cheque leaf belonging to the accused. It is admittedly one issued by the drawee bank against an account maintained by the petitioner. His contention is that what was handed over was an unsigned, blank cheque leaf. No sensible person will take an unsigned, blank cheque leaf which is a worthless piece of paper CRL.R.P. NO. 1699/2008 : 3: which cannot even be used as security for being encashed in the event of breach of the undertaking, if any, given. The learned Magistrate was therefore justified in dismissing the application to send the cheuqe for examination by an expert. I am fortified in this conclusion by the decision in Francis v. Pradeep (2004 (2) KLT 1080) and Baby Thomas v. T.T. Paul (2007(3) KHC 732). No grounds. Dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 1699/2008 : 4: