IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1907 of 2009 ------------------------------- CRL.MP NO. 1974/2008 IN CC 6/2004 OF COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE SPE/CBI-11, ERNAKULAM ........................................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS. 3 & 5 ------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.PREMKUMAR, S/O. PONNAPPAN PILLAI, ADVOCATE, 'LAKSHMI', KARUVELIPPADY, KOCHI-5. 2. ROSARY PREM @ V.S.ROSARY, W/O. P.PREMKUMAR, ADVOCATE, 'LAKSHMI', KARUVELIPPADY, KOCHI-5. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.R.ANIL SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX SRI.SHYAM ARAVIND SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE ---------------------------------------------------------- CBI, COCHIN, REP.BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009 ,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.1907 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 23rd day of July,2009 ORDER Petitioners are accused 3 and 5 in C.C.6/2004 on the file of Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam. At the defence stage they filed Annexure A application Crl.M.P.1974/2008, to take their specimen signature and writings from open court and to send them to an independent handwriting expert for comparison with the disputed signatures marked on the side of the prosecution. Under Annexure B order it was dismissed. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that learned Special Judge did not consider the application in the proper perspective and wrongly dismissed it holding that the attempt is to get a second opinion. It was pointed out that many of the documents sought to be sent to the expert were not sent to the expert, PW80, and in such circumstance the dismissal of the application was not justified. Learned counsel for the CBI submitted that though vakalath of the fifth accused was not sent to the expert as stated in Annexure B order, there is no Crl.M.C.1907/2009 2 reason to interfere with that order and the attempt is only to protract the trial. 2. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Annexure B order, it is clear that learned Special Judge did not consider the application in the proper perspective. The main reason for dismissal of the application is that it was an attempt to get a second report. The fact that signature in the vakalath of the fifth accused was not compared by PW80 was not taken note of by the Special Judge. So also whether all the documents which are sought to be forwarded were examined by PW80 was also not considered. In such circumstance, Annexure B order is quashed. Special Judge is directed to reconsider Crl.M.P.1974/2008 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006