IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 556 of 2009(B) -------------------------------- ST.4813/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV (MOBILE), TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------- R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AMMU NIVAS, T.C. 41/1282, KURYATHI, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS/STATE & 6TH ACCUSED : ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. VINOD G.NAIR, PRESENTLY WORKING AS REGIONAL MANAGER, M/S.AIR LINK INDIA LIMITED, HARBOUR VIEW, MILLE ROAD, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI. ADV. MR.SUNIL JACOB JOSE FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GIKKU JACOB FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.556 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the order passed in C.M.P.No.632/08 in S.T.No.4813/05. The petitioner therein is the sixth accused in the case and he has denied the execution of a cheque much less his signature in the disputed cheque, which is under consideration in the case. The learned Magistrate held that the disputed signature with the admitted signatures dated 14.02.2005 and in the Vakalath shall be sent for comparison with the alleged disputed signature. The courts have held that when a signature is sent for comparison, the admitted signatures if available, which must be sent for comparison should be almost of the same period and sending of signatures after initiation of a legal proceeding may not be absolutely correct for the reason that a person who wants to raise a defence of denial would be conscious of the same and there will be change in signatures. In this case, I am informed that this person has issued number of cheques during the relevant period of 2004. Therefore it is only proper that 2 or 3 Crl.M.C.No.556 of 2009 2 cheques of the period be summoned from the bank and send for comparison with the disputed signature. If the petitioner before the court below wants the signatures in the affidavit and Vakalath also to be compared, let it also be done. So, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of as follows :- 1) The prayer to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature is allowed. 2) For the purpose of comparison, the disputed signature with the admitted signature in the cheques issued by the petitioner from the bank be summoned and sent for comparison. 3) If the petitioner still insists for comparison of his signature in the affidavit filed and Vakalath it also may be sent for comparison with the disputed signature. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN JUDGE pac