IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 461 of 2008() ------------------------ CMP.56/2008 IN C.C. NO. 183/1994 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: --------------------------- P.V.SADASIVAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, KANIYAMBETTA POST, VYTHIRI. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. C.P.PUSHPADATHAN, S/O.PADKARAJU GOWDER, CHEMBAKAPATTA, KANIYAMBATTA P.O., VYTHIRI. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 461 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No. 183/1994 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta, challenges Annexure A3 order dated 17.01.2008 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the application filed by the petitioner as C.M.P.No. 56/2008 for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert for ascertaining the age of the signature on the cheque and the age of the other writings on the cheque. The said request was turned down mainly for the reason that after the expiry of 14 years, it may not be possible to identify with certainty the exact time of affixing the signature on Ext.P1 cheque. The signature on the cheque is in one ink and the other writings are in a different ink. The learned Magistrate rightly observed that the expert may not be able to give an opinion regarding the age of the signature as well as the age of the other writings in the cheque and that even if such such an expert opinion is tendered, it is after all only an opinion which cannot be conclusive. The conclusion of the learned CRL. M.C. NO. 461/2008 : 2: Magistrate is supportable in the light of the decision reported in Francis v. Pradeep (2004(2) KLT 1080) and Baby Thomas v. T.T. Paul and another (2007(3) KHC 732). That apart, the request for sending the cheque was made after a remit of the case by this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 191/2000. On a perusal of the Annexure A1 judgment dated 08.10.2007, it will be seen that the remand of the case was closed one directing the Magistrate to re-consider the question regarding the defective notice which was strongly relied on during the earlier occasion to record an order of acquittal against the accused. Since the above remand was a limited remand, it precludes the petitioner from raising contentions which were not covered by the remand order. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C. NO. 461/2008 : 3: