IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3818 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CRRP.13/2010 OF SESSIONS COURT, WAYANADU. ........... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- JAMSHEER T.K., S/O.MUHAMMED, THAIKANDIYIL HOUSE, THRIKKAIPETTA (P.O), WAYANADU DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.S. SUDHA, D/O.SADANANDAN, ALUPPADIKKAL HOUSE, THRIKKAIPETTA (PO), WAYANADU DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.I.V. PRAMOD. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 3818 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 1st day of November,2010 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.139/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalpetta taken cognizance for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on a complaint filed by second respondent. After closing the evidence of second respondent, petitioner filed CMP 377/2010 an application to send the dishonoured cheque to an expert to compare the handwriting contending that when second respondent was examined as PW1, she deposed that it was written in her presence by the petitioner and therefore the cheque is to be sent to the expert. By Annexure A1 order, learned Magistrate dismissed the application. Petitioner challenged that order before Crl.M.C.3818/2010 2 Sessions Court in Crl.R.P.13/2010. Learned Sessions Judge by Annexure A2 order dismissed the revision. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure A1 and A2 orders and to send the dishonoured cheque to the expert as sought for. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and second respondent were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that when second respondent was examined as PW1, she deposed that name of the payee, the date and amount were all written by the petitioner in her presence and it is the case of the petitioner that he had only put his signature and written his name in the cheque which was allegedly handed over to the father of the second respondent who was examined as DW1 and in such circumstances learned Magistrate should have sent the dishonoured cheque to an expert. Learned counsel argued that as per the case of the second respondent, the disputed writings in the dishonoured cheque was written in 2009 and Crl.M.C.3818/2010 3 therefore there is no likelihood of a change in the handwriting from 2009 to 2010 and in such circumstances learned Sessions Judge was not justified in not interfering with Annexure A1 order on the ground that there is no writings of the petitioner available during the year 2009. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Annexure A1 and A2 orders, I find no reason to interfere with the orders. The evidence of PW1 is that Ext.P1 cheque was written in her presence which is denied by the petitioner. When petitioner was examined as DW2, he had given evidence that except the signature and his name, he did not write anything in Ext.P1 cheque. I find that this aspect was not challenged in cross examination. In such circumstances, I do not find it necessary to interfere with the orders. Petitioner is entitled to challenge Annexure A1 order along with the final judgment, if it goes against him. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Crl.M.C.3818/2010 4 tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006