IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4266 of 2007() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/11/2005 IN CRMP.3109/05 IN CC.68/2004 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT IN THE CRMP ------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS JOSEPH, MULLAKARIYIL HOUSE, ELAMDESOM P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI SRIJESTIN MATHEW RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED/PETITIONER IN THE CRMP --------------------------------------------- 1. MANI C.KAPPEN, KAPPIL HOUSE, PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.Revision Petition No. 4266 of 2007 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 O R D E R Revision Petitioner is the complainant in C.C.68/2004 on the file of Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The case of the revision petitioner is that first respondent issued the dishonoured cheque towards payment of legally recoverable debt. After the evidence of the revision petitioner, first respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.3846 of 2007, an application, to send the dishonoured cheque to Forensic Science Laboratory to find out whether there is any difference in the period of the signature and the body of the cheque. As per order dated 27-10-2007, learned Magistrate allowed the application. It is challenged in this revision by the complainant. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and learned counsel appearing for first respondent were heard. Crl.R.P.No.4266/2007 - 2 - 3. The arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that attempt of the first respondent is only to protract the proceedings. It was pointed out that the first respondent had filed petitions under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and petitions were dismissed and finally petitioner was permitted to recall and cross- examine revision petitioner by the Sessions Court in Crl.R.P.5/2006 and in such circumstances, learned Magistrate should not have allowed the application. The learned counsel also submitted that as the cheque was already forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory as directed in the order in Crl.M.P. No.3846/2007, if revision petition is to be dismissed, Magistrate is to be directed to dispose the case immediately after receipt of the report. The fact that the revision petitioner earlier filed an application to recall PW1 for cross-examination and it Crl.R.P.No.4266/2007 - 3 - was dismissed and finally allowed by the Sessions Court, is not a ground to deny an opportunity to get a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory. It is for the accused to decide in what way he has to prove his case. The case of the accused is that he had only given a signed blank cheque as security, which was later filled by the complainant. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory with regard to the writings in Exhibit P1 cheque and the signature is relevant to prove the defence case. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The revision petition is dismissed. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case immediately after receipt of the report of an expert, without further delay. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE skr