IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1650 of 2009(C) -------------------------------------- CRL.RP.NO.34/2008 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA, CMP.NO.4330/2008 IN C.C. NO. 19/2007 CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- E.M.SALI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O,MOHAMMED KUNJU, KUMARASWAMY FURNITURE, WEST PULAYANVAZHI JUNCTION,THIRUVAMPADY P.O. ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.E.RAFEEK. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. A.M.NAZEER, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.LATE ABDUL KARIM,MAHAR MANZIL,VELLAKKINAR WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.G.GIREESH KUMAR, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. =================== Crl.M.C. No. 1650 of 2009-C =================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.19/2007 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the complaint filed by the first respondent. After closing of the evidence, petitioner filed CMP No.4330/2008, an application to send the dishonoured cheque to Forensic Science Laboratory to find out the difference in the age of the signature and the handwriting in the dishonoured cheque to substantiate his contention that it was not issued by the petitioner. Under Annexure I order, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application. By Annexure II order, the learned Sessions Judge also the dismissed Crl.R.P. No.34/2008 filed by the petitioner challenging Annexure I order. As a second revision is not maintainable, this petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging that orders. Crl.M.C.No.1650/2009-C -2- 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that when it is the specific case of the petitioner that cheque was not issued by him and the handwriting in the dishonoured cheque and signature were of different periods, learned Magistrate should have send the cheque to an expert as sought for. It is argued that petitioner has no other way to prove the said facts. 4. On going through Annexures I and II orders, I find that both the courts have properly considered the petition. I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders, invoking the extra-ordinary powers of this court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure as the order is legal and valid. Petitioner is entitled to challenge the order along with the appeal, if it is warranted. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr