IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1807 of 2011() --------------------------------- M.P.NO. 2368/2011 IN CC.605/2009 DATED 24.05.2011 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED ----------------------------------- K.C.JOSEY, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.K.V.CLEETUS, KURISINKAL HOUSE, IX/153, EAST OF VELI SCHOOL, FORT KOCHI - 680001. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.-682 031 2. M.X.JOSEPH, S/O.XAVIER, MADAMAKKAL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.15/1199 C, MATTANCHERRY.-680001 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1807 of 2011() ANNEXURE ANNEXURE 1 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT C.C.NO. 605/09 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, II, KOCHI FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/08/09 ANNEXURE 2 : COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO. 605/2009 DATED 07.05.2011 ANNEXURE 3 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.02.2011 ANNEXRUE 4 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM ANNEXURE 5 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.P.NO. 2368/11 IN C.C. NO. 605/2009 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO. II, KOCHI // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE smt THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C. No.1807 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 16th day of June 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.605 of 209 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kochi for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner filed Annexure-2, petition to send the cheque for expert opinion. The 2nd respondent filed Annexure-3, objection stating that he has no case that petitioner had filled up the cheque or signed the same in his presence. He claimed that petitioner had brought the cheque filled up and signed and give the same to him. Learned Magistrate disallowed the prayer to send the cheque for expert opinion. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner. I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. But I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to Crl.M.C. No.1807 of 2011 -: 2 :- raise the contention in an appeal that may be preferred against the judgment in C.C.No.605 of 2009, as the law provides. With the above observation this Crl.M.C. is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt