IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3761 of 2011() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/10/2011 IN CMP 198/2011 IN CC.127/2010 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS – II, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :- --------------------------------------- ANTONY, S/O.PAILY, PURAVATHAN HOUSE, AKANAD, MUDAKUZHA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE :- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMANAN, S/O.KELAPPAN, PANDECHERRY HOUE, THETTIKKOTTE LANE GREEN LAND, PERUMABAVOOR-683 542. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. ADV. SMT.SOUMINI JAMES FOR R1 SRI.BIJU.P.THOMAS FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt CRL.M.C.No. 3761 OF 2011 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Annexure A1 :- Copy of petition No.C.M.P.198/2011 in C.C.127/2010 dated 24.9.2011 of Judicial First Class Court, No.II, Perumbavoor. Annexure A2 :- Copy of objection to Annexure A1 dated 27.9.2011 filed by the respondent. Annexure A3 :- Copy of order dated 10.10.2011 in C.M.P.198/2011 in C.C.127/2010 Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No.II, Perumbavoor. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3761 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.127/2010 on the file of J.F.C.M.-II, Perumbavoor. A complaint was filed against him under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. The evidence on the side of the complainant was over. The accused was questioned under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. It is now posted for defence evidence. The accused/petitioner then filed a petition for sending the cheque in question for expert opinion. According to the petitioner, he had handed over signed blank cheque leaves to one Michael in the year 1997 and making use of that cheque leaf the complainant has filed the complaint in the year 2010 stating that the cheque was issued on 7.7.2009. According to the learned counsel, if the cheque is examined by an expert the fact that signed blank cheque leaf was given about 12 years back can certainly found out and so, for that purpose the cheque has to be sent for expert opinion. 2. This request is strongly resisted by the learned counsel for the complainant. The learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in S. Gopal v. D. Crl.M.C. No.3761 of 2011 -: 2 :- Balachandran reported in [2008 (1) Crimes 704 (Mad)]in support of her submission that the age of ink cannot be determined by expert with scientific accuracy. It may not be possible for an expert to find the age of ink, but it may be possible for the court to find whether the cheque was filled up in an old signed blank cheque leaf on a subsequent day. Similarly, the petitioner can also examine Michael to whom the signed blank cheque leaf was stated to have been given and also adduce other evidence to probabilise his version that the cheque was given by him in the year 1997 and that the cheque in question in this case was not issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. But the request to send the document for an opinion on that point alone cannot be allowed. In view of what is stated above, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure A3 order. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations. But the petitioner can raise all these contentions at the time of final hearing of the case. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J UDGE. Jvt