IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1164 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/03/2008 IN CMP. 1201 /2008 IN CC.331/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ URMILADEVI, LAXMI NIVAS, NEAR MATTANIKKARA S.N.D.P. MANDIRAM, ERUMELI. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. M.L.ANSARI,MADATHIL HOUSE, MOONAMMILE BHAGOM, MUNDAKKAYAM, MUNDAKKAYAM.P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No.1164 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No. 331/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kanjirappally in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involving a cheque for Rs.36,000/-, challenges Annexure A3 order dated 04.03.2008 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the petitioner's application for sending Ext.P8, photocopy of the cheque to the expert for comparison and opinion. The learned Magistrate took the view that since the drawee bank had not dishonoured the cheque on the ground that the signatures differ and that the only ground for which the cheque was dishonoured was for insufficiency of funds, the petitioner's request for sending the cheque to the expert for comparison and the contention of the petitioner that the signature on the cheque is not that of his could not arise for consideration. Since the files in C.C. No. 331 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Kanjirappally were missing, the matter was reported to this Court CRL.R.P. NO. 1164/2008 : 2: and this Court as per Annexure A1 order dated 19.03.2007 permitted the Chief Judicial Magistrate to reconstruct the missing cheque with the photocopy of the cheque. That apart, it is not possible for the scientific expert to compare a photocopy of the disputed documents for the purpose of expert opinion. Hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. It is, however, made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioner from adducing other evidences to substantiate his contention that the cheque in question was not issued by him and that it does not bear his signature by either summoning the bank records or adducing other evidences. Without prejudice to this right of the petitioner, this Crl.R.P is dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 1164/2008 : 3: