IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST APRIL 2009 / 1ST VAISAKHA 1931 CRL.MC.NO. 1388 OF 2009() -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP.380/2009 IN CC.1136/2006 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- M.E. SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.M. IBRAHIM, MADATHIL VEEDU, PALLIKKARA, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE, HOSDURG. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S) - COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS PAILE, S/O. PAILE, AGED 65 YEARS, THOTTUMUGAL HOUSE, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.A. SALIM R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. M.C. No.1388 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of April, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner is challenging Annexure A4 order dated 7.3.2009 of the court below refusing to send the cheque to the expert to ascertain the age of the writings therein. Petitioner submits that learned Magistrate, by the impugned order has refused an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his contention. 3. I have gone through the order. Case now set up by the petitioner is that the cheque in question was issued during the year 1993 and that respondent No.1 who stealthily got the cheque filled up and presented the same. Learned Magistrate observed that no such suggestion was put to respondent No.1 when he was examined as P.W.1 and even when P.W.2, Manager of the Bank was examined. Petitioner had no such case till the examination of D.W.1. It is not the case of the petitioner that any reply was given to the statutory notice intimating him about the dishonour of the cheque. It is not as if whenever there is a prayer for sending the cheque to the expert that request has to be acceded to. In the facts and circumstances of the CRL. 1388 of 2009 -: 2 :- case learned Magistrate was justified in refusing the prayer made by the petitioner. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned requiring interference by this Court, Crl. M.C. is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== S.A. NO. OF 2001 =================== J U D G M E N T APRIL, 2009