IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3565 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRL.M.P.NO.2005/2007 IN S.T.NO.32/2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, THODUPUZHA. REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------- THOMAS P. SEBASTIAN @ BABU, S/O.DEVASSI, AGED 33 YEARS, PULINTHANATHU HOUSE, MAVINCHUVADU BHAGAM, MANGATTUKAVALA, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.J. THOMAS, SON OF THOMAS, KUMBUKKAL HOUSE, EZHUMUTTAM P.O., CHALASSERRY KARA KARIMANNUR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 3565 OF 2007 =========================== Dated this the 19th day of December,2008 ORDER This revision is filed challenging the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thodupuzha dismissing Crl.M.P.2005/2007 an application filed by the revision petitioner accused to send Ext.P1 the dishonoured cheque for chemical examination. The case of the revision petitioner in the application itself is that it is apparent that there is an overwriting on the date and therefore it is necessary to get a report after chemical examination to find out whether the date is corrected or not. In the objection filed by the complainant the fact that there is overwriting in the date shown in Ext.P1 cheque is not denied. Learned Magistrate dismissed the petition accepting the case of second respondent that if it is seen from the cheque itself that there is correction, it is not necessary to get the report of an expert. CRRP 3565/2007 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard. 3. Though notice was served on the second respondent, he did not appear. On going through the petition filed by second respondent to the said application and the order passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the dishonoured cheque, I find no reason to interfere with the order. As stated in the petition filed by revision petitioner itself, there is correction in the date of the cheque. A perusal of the cheque prima facie shows that there is correction. In such circumstance, it is not necessary to get the report of an expert as sought for. I find no reason to interfere with the order. Send back the records forthwith. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006