IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1584 of 2011() ------------------------- STC.3283/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED KUNHI K.V.P., S/O.K.V.EBRAHIMKUTTY, N.M.HOUSE, 139 A, JAWAHAR NAGAR, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. C.M.K.ABDULLA, S/O.B.V.ABDUL KAREEM, DARUL HIDAYA HOUSE, MATTOOL, KANNUR-670 032. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss CRMC.NO.1584/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.A1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED IN STC.3283/2008 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE NO.1, KANNUR, ANNEX.A2: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1584 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in S.T.No.3283 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner filed C.M.P.No.1491 of 2011 to send the cheque for expert opinion on the handwriting. That application was dismissed as per Annexure-A3, order dated May 25, 2011. That order is under challenge. It is submitted by learned counsel that first respondent in his evidence as PW1 has stated that it was petitioner who filled up the cheque. 2. I have gone through the testimony of first respondent. First respondent in cross examination stated that petitioner wrote the cheque in his presence. It is seen that the issue was not further pursued by the petitioner. It is thereafter that the application to send cheque for expert opinion was preferred. I do not think it necessary, at this stage to interfere with the order. But I make it clear that this order will not stand in the way of petitioner raising appropriate contention in an appeal that may be preferred on the judgment in the case that the cheque ought to have been sent to the expert for opinion. Crl.MC No.1584/2011 2 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed with the above observation. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks