IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 479 of 2005() ----------------------------- ST.489/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER: ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------- DR.K.V.HAMEED, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. VEERAN HAJI, KODUNGOOKARAN HOUSE, P.O.FEROKE PETTAH, KOZHIKODE, (FEROKE POLICE LIMITS) BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDER RAJ SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.C.NIZAAR AHAMED, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. V.C.ABOOBACKER KOYA, V.C.HOUSE, ENNAPADAM, WEST KALLAI, KOZHIKODE 673 003. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU - R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 479/ 2005 --------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008. ORDER The accused in ST.No.489/2002 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode is the petitioner in this revision petition. The revision is preferred against an order passed by the court below dismissing an application filed by the petitioner for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert for an opinion regarding entries in the cheque. ST.489/2002 relates to an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The court below found that the accused does not seem to have taken a stand denying his hand writing, in the reply notice nor was any suggestion put to PW1 in cross examination. Apparently the writing in the cheque was disputed only when the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. An application was filed about 6 months thereafter. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the complainant. No doubt the accused CRRP.479 /2005 2 should have preferred an application for sending the disputed cheque to the handwriting expert at the earliest. The delay in preferring the application as such does not seem to be justified. But interest of justice demands that the accused is in a position to give the best evidence possible and opinion of an expert as regards the writing in the disputed cheque would no doubt be relevant, though not conclusive as such. It would be better that the opinion of the expert also be obtained before further proceeding with the matter. In the circumstances, I am of the view that it would be appropriate in the interest of justice that the application filed by the accused as CMP.No.416/2005 in ST.No.489/2002 should be allowed. Therefore the revision is allowed. The order passed by the court below is set aside. The court below shall see that the cheque in question is sent to the handwriting expert and shall ensure that the report is obtained, at any rate within three months . The trial of the case shall be further proceeded with after obtaining opinion from the handwriting expert. V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/ CRRP.479 /2005 3