IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 351 of 2008() ----------------------------- CC.961/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- MOHANKUMAR, KUMBAZHATHU HOUSE, MANAPALLI SOUTH MURI PARAMBA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.MADHU, NADALAYIL HOUSE, VALLIKUNNAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 351 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner, who is the complainant in C.C.No. 961 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC with regard to a stage carrier bus, challenges the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Magistrate discharging the accused under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. He also challenges Annexure-7 order dated 29.12.2007 passed by the said Magistrate rejecting the petitioner's application filed as C.M.P. No. 9032/2006 to forward his specimen signature for the purpose of comparing the same with the disputed signatures and handwritings in Form No. 29 and 30 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. In fact, the learned Magistrate has observed in Annexure-7 order that to prove the forgery of the signature, the best evidence is the opinion of the expert. However, the petition was dismissed on the ground of delay which cannot be sustained. Annexure-7 CRL.R.P. NO. 351/2008 : 2: order dated 29.12.2007 in C.M.P. No. 9032/2006 shall stand set aside and that petition will stand allowed and the disputed documents shall be sent to the handwriting expert along with the specimen signatures of the petitioner/complainant for comparison as to the genuineness of the signatures and writings in Form No. 29 and 30. It shall be open to the Magistrate to send to the handwriting expert the admitted contemporaneous signatures of the petitioner/complainant obtained in the R.C book also along with the specimen signatures extracted from the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Magistrate discharging the accused is also set aside and the Magistrate shall proceed with C.C. No. 961/2005 only after receipt of the opinion of the handwriting expert. This Crl.R.P is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 351/2008 : 3: