IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2147 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.332/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- MRS.P.V.REMADEVI, D/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'SARIGA, AMBIKA ROAD, PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. V.V.PRABHAKARAN, S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, CHALIL LAKSHMIPRABHA NEAR ELAYAVOOR TEMPL E, POST MUNDAYAD, KANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY P.P. SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.2147 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Sec.500 of the IPC. She – the Headmistress of the school, is alleged to have written a pseudonymous letter in the name of the complainant to the Headmaster of another school. That letter allegedly contained defamatory publications against the complainant. Cognizance was taken. The trial was in progress. 2. This case has a chequered history. The proceedings started in 1996. It was once dismissed applying the dictum in Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (AIR 1998 SC 3281). The same was challenged. The matter was sent back after the decision in Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002 (2) KLT 189 (SC)) pronounced. The crucial dispute is about Crl.M.C. No.2147 of 2008 -: 2 :- the authorship of the writings in the allegedly defamatory letter. The petitioner was asked to give her specimen handwriting. She did. But when the disputed letter was sent along with other documents to the expert, the expert has opined that more specimen handwritings are necessary. The learned Magistrate, at this stage, invoking the powers under Sec.73 of the Evidence Act, wanted the petitioner to give some more writings to facilitate comparison and report by the expert. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order under which the petitioner is directed to give her handwriting under Sec.73 of the Evidence Act for the purpose of forwarding the same to the expert as specimen handwriting. 3. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are enough and more specimen writings available that it is not necessary now to ask her to give further specimen writings. The petitioner further laments that she has been forced to endure the trauma of continuance of this prosecution for the past 12 years. She may not be further vexed and harassed, it is prayed. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am certainly of opinion that the learned Magistrate has committed no error in asking for the specimen writing of the petitioner as required by Crl.M.C. No.2147 of 2008 -: 3 :- the expert – for more specimen writings. The anxiety of the petitioner to ensure expeditious termination of the proceedings is understandable. But that cannot certainly stand in the way of the learned Magistrate taking necessary steps for a proper resolution of the controversy though the disposal has become belated now. 5. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. The petitioner shall forthwith appear before the learned Magistrate and give her specimen writings. The learned Magistrate must take all necessary steps and leave no stone unturned to ensure that this prosecution which has commenced in 1996 is completed as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of 6 months from the date on which a copy of this order is produced. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge