IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 514 of 2008() ------------------------ STC.40/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- CHELLAN PUTHIYAPURAYIL MOIDEEN, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, S.V.HOUSE, CHOOTTATTU,. PUTHIYANGADI, MADAI POST. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.S.S.HUSSAIN SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THEKKE THAIVALAPPIL ABDUL SALAM HAJI, S/O.UMMER, NEAR MOIDEEN PALLI, PUTHIYANGADI, POST MADAYI. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 514 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner, who is the accused in S.T.C. No. 40 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, had denied the transaction and contended that his signature on a blank cheque leaf was obtained by the Dy.S.P, Taliparamba when he was called to the police station in connection with a complaint against the petitioner's brother-in-law to whom the petitioner allegedly owes some money. The petitioner's request for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert was allowed and the petitioner remitted the necessary batta and fee. Subsequently the specimen signature and the writings of Dy.S.P, who was examined as DW2 in the case, was taken. Thereafter the petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 20/2008 before the court below praying to recall DW2 and to take his specimen handwriting in the presence of the petitioner alleging that on the date of which the specimen writings were taken, the petitioner could not be CRL. M.C. NO. 514/2008 : 2: present in court in connection with the death of the mother-in- law of his daughter. The court below dismissed the said application as per the impugned order dated 15.01.2008. 2. As rightly observed by the learned Magistrate, there is no reason to doubt that the specimen writings of DW2 who is a fairly senior police officer was not taken according to law and that instead the specimen writings of some other persons had been taken. The petition filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the court below. He having remained absent on the relevant date cannot claim that the specimen writings of DW2 should be taken in his presence only. I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C. NO. 514/2008 : 3: