IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2498 of 2009() ------------------------------ CMP.3111/2009 IN C.C.No.198 of 2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------- SREE GANGA, SREEGANGA HOUSE,ALUMKADAVU P.O., MARUTHOORKULANGARA SOUTH,KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ----------------------------------------------- 1. P.L.NALINAKSHY, DENI NIVAS,ALUMKADAVU P.O., MARUTHOORKULANGARA SOUTH,KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2498 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of August 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 2. An order refusing to send the cheque for expert opinion is under challenge in this revision. Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.198 of 2004 of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karunagappally arising from a complaint preferred by respondent No.1 for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After about five years of filing the case petitioner filed C.M.P.No.3111 of 2009 to send the cheque for expert opinion. Learned magistrate by the impugned order dismissed the petition. It is contended by learned counsel that examination of the cheque by an expert is necessary to prove the defence set up by petitioner. 3. Respondent No.1 when examined as PW1 claimed that petitioner brought the cheque filled up and signed it in her presence. Respondent No.1 has no case that petitioner has filled up the cheque. In view of that case of respondent No.1, it is unnecessary to go into the question with the aid of expert opinion whether writings in the cheque are that of petitioner. It remains only a question whether the version of respondent No.1 that petitioner brought the cheque filled up, can be believed or not. So far as signature in the cheque is concerned, learned magistrate has observed that there is no denial of the Crl.R.P.No.2498 of 2009 2 signature in Ext.P7, reply notice sent on behalf of the petitioner and instead, that fact is specifically admitted. Learned magistrate has observed that in the petition, there is no prayer to examine the signature in the cheque by the expert. On going through the order and hearing learned counsel I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order under challenge calling for interference. Resultantly this revision fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/