IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2749 of 2008() ------------------------------ CC.526/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- UDAYAKUMAR, S/O.KITTAN, AGED 45/03, CHIRAYIL KIZHAKETHIL, VENMONEY P/W-III, KODUKULANJI KARODU MURI, VENMONEY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.SIMLA PRABHAKARAN SMT.SHIJIMOL M.MATHEW SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN SMT.SIJI JOY RESPONDENTS: STATE/COMPLAINANT AND COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. A.G.RAJASHEKHARAN NAIR, AMBIZHETHU HOUSE KODUKULANJI KARODU MURI, VENMONEY VILLAGE. 3. S.I. OF POLICE, VENMONEY IN CRIME NO. 17/2003. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P. RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 2749 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 01-09-2008 ORDER Petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 526 of 2008 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Chengannur, which is a prosecution on a private complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 468 I.P.C. involving a cheque, challenges the order dated 2-6-2008 passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing his application (C.M.P. No.81 of 2008) filed under Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act to send Ext.P2 cheque leaf to the handwriting expert for expert opinion regarding the author of the writings in the cheque. 2. The learned Magistrate, inter-alia, held that the present petition was nothing but an attempt to protract the proceedings. The Magistrate also relied on the circumstance of the petitioner earlier filing a similar petition C.M. No. 3919 of 2007 and which was dismissed by the court below. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the earlier petition filed by the petitioner was only for comparing the signature and that is why the learned Magistrate dismissed the application holding that the c comparison of the signature was unnecessary since the petitioner is admitting his signature in the cheque. 3. I cannot agree. with the contention of the revision petitioner. The earlier application filed as C.M.P. No. 3919 of 2007 shows that the petitioner was disputing the handwriting in the cheque by alleging that he did not either sign the cheuque Crl.R.P. No. 2749 of 2008 -:2:- nor had he filled up the cheque in his handwriting as deposed to by the complainant. He, therefore, wanted his specimen signatures to be taken by the court for the purpose of comparing the handwriting in the cheque by a handwriting expert. He did not specifically state in the earlier application that his request is only to compare the signature in the cheque in question. Specimen signature is also handwriting. He did not confine his prayer to the signature in question alone. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the present application is also for comparing the handwriting in the cheque in question. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate. I am also fortified in this connection by the decisions of this Court in Francis v. Pradeep - 2004 (2) KLT 1080 and Baby Thomas v. T.T. Paul and Another - 2007 (3) KHC 732 RB (J). This Revision which is devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.