IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4105 of 2010() -------------------------------- C.C.NOS.23, 24 AND 25/2008, of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- V.K.PAREETH, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.KUNJEEN PILLA, VELLAPPILLY HOUSE, KANJIRAKKADU KARA, RAYONPURAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE : ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LT.COL.MATHEW JOSEPH (RETD), S/O.LATE P.V.JOSEPH, THEKKEL HOUSE, RESIDING AT DOON VILLA, THIRUVANKULAM P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. K.J.MOHAMED ANZARI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS .P.JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4105 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 ORDER Order dated 28.09.2010 in C.M.P.No.104/2010 in C.C.Nos.23, 24 and 25/2008 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perumbavoor is under challenge at the instance of petitioner/accused. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed money from him on 22.02.2000 and for the discharge of that liability issued cheques involved in the cases referred to above. Case of the petitioner is that he had some transaction with respondent No.1 in the year 1999 and while so signed, blank cheques were given as security which are misused. In the course of trial, petitioner filed C.M.P.No.21/2009 to send the cheques to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram (for 'the FSL') to ascertain difference in the oldness of writings and signature in the disputed cheques. In response to that application, the cheques were sent to the FSL which reported that there is no scientific technique available to find out difference in the oldness of writings and signature. Later, petitioner filed C.M.P.No.104/2010 to send the cheques to the Central Forensic Crl.M.C. No.4105 of 2010 2 Science Laboratory, Hyderabad(for short “the CFSL”). That application was dismissed by the learned magistrate holding that it is not shown that there is any such technique available in the CFSL and that report of the FSL is not shown to be incorrect and that petitioner has no case that technique to find out the oldness of writings and signature in the cheque is available at CFSL. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in T. Nagappa v. Y.R.Muralidhar(2008 AIR SC 2010) in which the Supreme Court observed that rejection of the request of accused to send the disputed cheque to the expert amounted to depriving opportunity to him to prove his case. 2. But any decision must be considered on the facts dealt with. In the present case it is the case of petitioner that transaction was of the year 1999. Petitioner does not dispute that he signed the cheque in question and handed over the same to respondent No.1. Learned Magistrate has observed that petitioner has not disputed correctness of the report submitted by the FSL. This court in Baby Thomas v. Paul (2007(4) KLT 738) stated that it is not as if whenever there is a demand to Crl.M.C. No.4105 of 2010 3 send the cheque to the expert, such request must be allowed and the cheque must be send to expert. That question has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case. On the facts of the present case, learned Magistrate was satisfied that the cheques were not required to be sent to the CFSL, Hyderabad. I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Petition is dismissed. THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. ln