IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2104 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRMP.899/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II (FOREST OFFENCES),PUNALUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------- K.SOMANADHA PILLAI PARAMPILPUTHENVEEDU, KARIMPINKONAM, YEROOR VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAHEED AHMAD SRI.M.RISHIKESH SHENOY RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. MATHAI THOMAS, JOSE BHAVAN, EACHENKUZHY MURI, AIYRANALLUR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI. C.M NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 2104 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No. 606 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -III (Forest Offences), Punalur, which is a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, involving a cheque for Rs.1 lakh, challenges the order dated 18.03.2008 passed by the Magistrate rejecting his application filed as Crl. M.P. No. 899 of 2008 requesting the forwarding of the cheque in question for expert opinion. 2. The revision petitioner has admitted his signature in the cheque in question. According to him, it was offered as security to one Shibu Varghese and the complainant Mathai Thomas somehow managed to get possession of the cheque from Shibu Varghese. If the petitioner had given the cheque in question in the form of a signed blank cheque as a security to Shibu Varghese towards whom he admittedly owe liability, then the natural presumption is that it was intended to be used as a CRL.R.P. NO. 2104/2008 : 2: negotiable instrument in the event of the petitioner committed default in paying amounts due to Shibu Varghese. After receipt of the statutory notice in this case from Mathai Thomas, the petitioner does not appear to have taken any steps against Shibu Varghese in the year 2005 itself for unauthorisedly parting with his possession of the cheque. For resolving the dispute raised by the petitioner, the other writings in the cheque in question including the age of those writings need not be examined by sending the cheque for expert opinion. The learned Magistrate was right in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. I am fortified in this conclusion by the decision in Francis v. Pradeep (2004 (2) KLT 1080) and Baby Thomas v. T.T Paul and another (2007(3) KHC 732). This revision is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 2104/2008 : 3: