IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1981 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CRRP.171/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED --------------------------------------- MURUGARAJ, III/414, TARUN BHAVAN, GANDIPURAM, SREEKARIYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.A.KRISHNAN MR.KIRAN GOPINATH RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED 1 AND 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. FOOD INSPECTOR, TRIVANDRUM CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MATHEW K.MATHEW 'MATHEWS', T.C.NO.9/19, (OLD), BEHIND TENNIS CLUB, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MATHEW K.GEORGE, 'MATHEWS', T.C.NO.9/19, (OLD), BEHIND TENNIS CLUB, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ================== Crl.M.C. No. 1981 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioner is the third accused in C.C.No.1617/2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner originally filed CMP No.7301/2001 to sent Ext.D1 bill produced by second accused, alleging that it was issued by the petitioner, to an expert for his opinion after comparing the handwriting in Ext.D1 bill with that of the petitioner. It was dismissed by the Magistrate. Later, petitioner filed CMP No.4663/2008 to sent Ext.D1 bill to an expert for an opinion whether the handwriting in Ext.D1 is that of the second accused. The learned Magistrate dismissed that petition also. Petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.171/2008 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram challenging that order. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed that petition under Annexure G order. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Crl.M.C.No.1981/2009 -2- Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure G order and to direct the Magistrate to sent Ext.D1 bill to an expert as prayed for in CMP No.4663/2008. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned Counsel is that Ext.D1 bill was not issued by the petitioner and to prove that it was not a bill issued by him, he originally filed an application to compare the handwriting in Ext.D1 bill with his handwriting and when it was dismissed he sought to sent the bill to an expert to compare the handwriting in Ext.D1 with that of second accused and the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge rejected the prayer holding that petitioner has no case from whom the petitioner got the idea that the handwriting in Ext.D1 bill is that of the second accused. 4. The fact that Ext.D1 bill was issued by the petitioner, even if it is correct, does not mean that the Crl.M.C.No.1981/2009 -3- handwriting should be that of the petitioner. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate or the learned Sessions Judge. Petitioner is entitled to challenge the order along with the final order. Learned Counsel submitted that evidence in the case was closed and an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence. If petitioner files an application for permission to adduce evidence, the Magistrate may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr