IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3912 of 2008() ------------------------------ ST.604/2007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-V NEYYATTINKARA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------ SOBHAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN PUNNAVILA KANNERU VEEDU MACHIYODE, CHENKAL PO., BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN PANICKER SRI.M.R.SASITH PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- 1. AJANTHAKUMAR, S/O.SAHADEVA PANICKER AJANTHA DHANUVACHAPURAM PO., 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 3912 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 1st day of January,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.604/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Neyyattinkara. After closing the evidence for the defence, revision petitioner filed an application to send the dishonoured cheque to an expert to get an opinion on the identity of the signature contending that the signature in Ext.P1 cheque is not that of the revision petitioner. Learned Magistrate as per order dated 6.11.2008 dismissed the application which is challenged in this revision filed under section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that when PW1 was examined, PW1 deposed that petitioner CRRP3912/2008 2 had signed in Ext.P1 cheque with his right hand and evidence of revision petitioner as DW1 establish that he cannot sign with his right hand and when revision petitioner denied the signature in the dishonoured cheque, learned Magistrate should have forwarded the cheque to the expert as sought for. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Nagappa v. Muralidhar (2008(3) KLT 158) and Kayani Bhaskar v. Sampoornam (2007(1) KLT SN 31). 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the impugned order, I find no reason to interfere with the order. Learned Magistrate dismissed the application for valid reasons. Eventhough revision petitioner received a notice demanding the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, he did not sent any reply. Learned Magistrate found that if the cheque did not contain the signature of the revision petitioner he would have denied that fact when the notice was received. CRRP3912/2008 3 Learned Magistrate also found that the signature in the dishonoured cheque is similar to the admitted signature of the revision petitioner. In such circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the interlocutory order passed by the learned Magistrate. Criminal Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is at liberty to challenge this order along with the final judgment if it goes against him. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006