IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 351 of 2008() ------------------------ CMP.1469/2007 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KALPETTA. .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- SABURAJ V., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN MASTER, PREETHA SADANAM, KANIAMBATTA P.O., VYTHIRI TALUK, WYNAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------ 1. SELF GROWTH NIDHI LTD., KALPETTA, REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT BRANCH MANAGER, BAIJU THOMAS T.T., KALPETTA P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. No. 351 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 31st January, 2008 ORDER Petitioner who is the accused in S.T. C. No. 910 of 2007 on the file of the Judl. First Class Magistrate, Kalpetta in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenges the order dated 14-12-2007 passed by the Magistrate dismissing his application to send the cheque in question for expert opinion regarding the age of the writings in the cheque vis -a-viz. the signature order therein. According to the petitioner, the cheque in question was given by him to the complainant as a blank signed cheque while he availed a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the year 2005 and he had repaid some amount towards the said loan and after disputes arose between the petitioner and the complainant, the complainant had misutilised the cheque by writing in the cheque Rs. 5,63,000/- an exorbitant amount and presenting it before the drawee bank and thereafter prosecuting the petitioner. At the stage of defence evidence, the petitioner had filed the above petition. He would contend that if it is proved that the signature and other writings in the cheque are of two different periods that will substantiate the defence Crl.M.C. No. 351 of 2008 -:2:- version which will go in rebuttal of to the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions. If the petitioner had given a signed blank cheque as security for the loan availed of by him from the complainant, he was thereby giving an implied authority to the complainant to utilise the cheque for realising the loan amount. The very fact that the cheque is given as a security itself shows that it was intended to be used in the event of a default on a future date. Otherwise no person will receive a signed blank cheque by way of security. Admittedly, the petitioner had availed of a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the complainant and admittedly he has not discharged his liability in its entirety. The application for sending the cheque in question to the Forensic Science Laboratory was designedly with a view to protracting the proceedings. The petitioner will have to adduce other evidence to substantiate his contentions. I am not inclined to interfere with the discretion properly exercised by the learned Magistrate in dismissing the petition. This Crl. M.C. is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to adduce other evidence in support of his defence. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani Crl.M.C. No. 351 of 2008 -:3:- ani.