IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1384 of 2011() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN CRMP 34/2011 IN CC.270/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-IV, PUNALUR ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------------------------------- SAHEER KOYA THANGAL SAHEER COTTAGE, KUNNICODU.P.O, VILAKUDY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------- 1. VINOD KUMAR, VILAYIL VEEDU, MANIYAR.P.O, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM - 639 002. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts CRMC.NO.1384/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX 1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEX II COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 27/04/2007 ISSUED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED. ANNEX III COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 28/04/2011 VIDE CRLMP NO.34/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN CC NO.270/2009, BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-IV, PUNALUR. ANNEX-IV COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-IV, PUNALUR IN CRLMP.NO.34/2011, IN CC NO.270/2009. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts B.P. RAY, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl. M.C No. 1384 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 O R D E R Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Inspite of notice, none appears for the 1st respondent. 2. Petitioner is the accused in CC No.270/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Punalur for commissions of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Prosecution case is that the petitioner, who is the accused in the aforementioned case, borrowed an amount of Rupees One lakh and to discharge the liability, petitioner issued a cheque dated 19-02-2007 drawn on Kollam District Co- operative Bank, Kunnicode Branch. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had given the aforesaid cheque as security alone. According to him, the complainant misused the cheque by filling up the same with all entries except the signature. To substantiate the contention of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner filed an application before the Magistrate to send Crl. M.C No.1384/2011 -2- the disputed cheque to handwriting expert for comparing the handwriting of the entries except the signature with that of his admitted signature. Inspite of notice none appears on behalf of the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment in Kuruvilla V. Sivarama Pilla reported in 1996 (2) KLT 328. Accused filed such an application under Section 243 Cr.P.C only when the accused at the defence stage. In that view of the matter I direct that the disputed cheque sent for expert opinion at the cost of the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within 3 months from the date of filing such application. With the aforesaid direction Crl.M.C is disposed of. Sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge