IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2840 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/05/2008 IN CRMP 1368/08 IN CC.23/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERAMBRA .................... PETITIONER:ACCUSED ------------ MUNEER.K.V, S/O.ABUBAKKER HAJI, KAITHAVIL HOUSE, MENJANYAM AMSOM DESOM, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------- 1. JAYAN.K.K, S/O.KUNJIKRISHNAN NAIR, KANIYANKANDY MEETHAL,MENJANYAM AMSOM, VENGAPATTA DESOM, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2840 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated against him by the first respondent herein. According to the petitioner, the name of the payee and the signature alone were written and affixed by him and that such blank cheque without entering the details of the amounts is being misutilised by the complainant to stake a false claim against the petitioner herein. The complainant, it would appear and asserted that the cheque was written and signed by the petitioner in his presence. The petitioner wanted the cheque to be sent to the expert to confirm that except the name of the payee and the signature appearing on the cheque, no other entry was written by him. When such an application was filed, the complainant clarified that he had never intended to make an assertion that the other entries in the cheque (other than the name of the payee and the signature) were written by the petitioner in his presence. In short, he now concedes unambiguously that he has no case that anything other than the name of the payee and the signature were written or affixed by him. 2. The learned Magistrate in these circumstances rejected Crl.M.C.No.2840/08 2 the prayer for sending the cheque to the expert. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said course adopted by the learned Magistrate. He therefore prays that the impugned order may be set aside. I find absolutely no merit in the prayer made. The impugned order does not, according to me, not deserve to be challenged. There is no dispute now that the other entries in the cheque were filled up by the petitioner in the personal presence of the complainant. When the complainant does not have such an assertion, it is certainly unnecessary to waste the time of the court and the resources of the contestants to secure and obtain such a report from the expert. The learned Magistrate, according to me, had rightly rejected the application to forward the cheque to the expert. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it may be declared that the subsequent attempt of the complainant to explain such inconvenient statement made earlier by him are not worthy of acceptance. I am of the opinion that no such direction needs to be given now. The learned Magistrate shall consider the alleged incongruent statement and later explanation offered by the complainant at the appropriate stage. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.2840/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.2840/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008