IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2483 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 663/2008 IN ST.129/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ N.SAJI, KALABHAVANAM, ADINAD NORTH P.O, KARUNAGAPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, RAM MOHAN PALACE COMPOUND, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN. 2. SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD, AT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 123, ANGAPPANAICKEN STREET, CHENNAI. 6000001 REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.S.VIMAL KRISHNAN, ASSISTANT.EXECUTIVE, SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD, NAZEEMA COMPLEX, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM-01. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2483 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Signature in the cheque in question is admitted. But according to the petitioner, the cheque was handed over by him to another person, one Soman, in a totally different transaction. The complainant has somehow got hold of the said cheque and is attempting to misutilise the said signed blank cheque. This in short is the contention raised. The petitioner wanted the cheque to be sent to the expert. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order refused permission to send the cheque to the expert. The learned Magistrate took note of the nature of evidence available in the case, where the complainant had not at all asserted that the writings in the cheque are that of the petitioner herein. In these circumstances the learned Magistrate took the view that it is not necessary to send the cheque to the expert. Crl.M.C.No. 2483 of 2008 2 2. In the course of discussions at the Bar, in response to a specific query by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that no reply has been sent to the notice of demand and the contention that the cheque was handed over as a blank signed cheque to one Soman and the same is being misutilised by the complainant has not been raised at any time prior to the initiation of the proceedings. 3. I shall carefully refrain from adverting in detail to the rival contentions and express any opinion on the acceptability of such contentions, lest it may prejudice the interests of the parties. The order impugned in this case is an order refusing to send the cheque to the expert. This must be certainly reckoned as a step in aid to prove the contentions of one of the contestants. Ordinarily and normally this order is not a revisable order. The order being not revisable and in view of the specific bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. this court would look for very strong reasons to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to ignore the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. and pass orders in favour of the petitioner. Crl.M.C.No. 2483 of 2008 3 4. At the moment and with the available inputs, I need only say that, I am not persuaded to agree that any such compelling reasons exist in this case, which can persuade me to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction available under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is trite that such jurisdiction has to be invoked only sparingly and in exceptional cases when there is compelling need to invoke such jurisdiction in the interests of justice. In all other cases the parties will have to wait to challenge the order along with the final order in such prosecution pending in the court below. 5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate contentions before the learned Magistrate and later before the appellate or revisional court to challenge the impugned order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm