IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 970 of 2010 -------------------------------- [CR.MP.NOS.333/10 & 334/10 IN SC.NO.326/2007 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT ADHOC, FAST TRACK NO.II PATHANAMTHITTA. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- VASUKUTTAN, AGED 59 YEARS, PARANKIMAVILA VEETIL,CHOORAKKODE MURI,ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.SETHUNATH. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. EXCISE INSPECTOR, ADOOR EXCISE RANGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.970 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 22nd March 2010 O R D E R Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexures-1 and 2 orders dismissing Crl.M.P.333/2010 and 334/2010 in S.C.326/2007 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc, Fast Track-II, Pathanamthitta. Crl.M.P.333/2010 is filed to send Exts.P1 and P2 to the Forensic laboratory to compare the signature of PW2 and PW3 seen therein with their signatures seen in their depositions or in the alternative to compare the signature by the court. Crl.M.P.334/2010 is filed for a direction to the Village Officer to prepare a scene plan relating to the properties on Crmc 970/10 2 all the four sides of the scene of occurrence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that when Pws.1 and 2 were examined before the court they denied their signatures seen in Exts.P1 and P2 and in such circumstances, learned Sessions Judge should have either send Exts.P1 and P2 to an expert to compare the signatures seen therein with the admitted signatures of Pws.1 and 2 or at least the signatures should have been compared by the court invoking the power under Section 73 of Evidence Act. When Pws.1 and 2 themselves denied the signatures in Exts.P1 and P2, I do not find any reason to send the signatures for comparison to an expert as sought for. If learned Sessions Judge finds that for the Crmc 970/10 3 purpose of the case signatures seen in Exts.P1 and P2 are to be compared with the admitted signatures of Pws.1 and 2, learned Sessions Judge is at liberty to do so. I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-1 order dismissing Crl.M.P.333/2010. 4. Argument of the learned counsel relying on the decision of this court in Kosy v. State (1991 (2) ILR (Kerala) 521) and Rule 75 of Criminal Rules of Practice is that when sessions case is to be tried, scene plan is mandatory and as it is not prepared learned Sessions Judge should have directed the village officer to prepare a plan. 5. I find no illegality in the order dismissing Crl.M.P.334/2010 refusing to direct the village officer to prepare a plan at defence stage as sought for. Petitioner is Crmc 970/10 4 entitled to challenge the orders along with final order, if he is aggrieved by the same. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.