IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 95 of 2008() ----------------------- CRRP.31/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ P.M.JAMES, PULICKAL HOUSE, THIRUMALA WARD, ALAPPUZHA-13. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------- 1. P.M.JOHNACHAN, PULICKAL HOUSE, THIRUMALA WARD, ALAPPUZHA-13. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. SRI.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI FOR R.1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.95 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is an accused in a prosecution under Sec.500 of the IPC. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner in that prosecution is that in the hand of the petitioner defamatory publication was sent to the complainant. The authorship of the defamatory publication was not revealed in the publication. The complainant asserted that the petitioner was responsible for the publication. He wanted the court to compare the handwriting in the offending publication with the handwriting of the accused. Under Sec.73 of the Evidence Act, the specimen handwriting of the petitioner was taken in court. After the specimen handwriting was taken, at the request of the complainant, the learned Magistrate took the decision to forward the letter in question to the expert for Crl.M.C. No.95 of 2008 -: 2 :- comparison along with certain other admitted documents. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by that order. The petitioner preferred a revision petition and the same was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. As the second revision is not maintainable, the petitioner has gained entry into this Court now by describing his petition as one under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. What is the grievance of the petitioner? First of all, it is contended that the court/the learned Magistrate is not entitled to take the handwriting of the indictee under Sec.73 of the Evidence Act and thereafter forward the same to the expert under Sec.45 of the Evidence Act. The contention cannot obliviously lie in the light of the decision in State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram (AIR 1979 SC 14). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that Ext.P1 is only a photocopy and therefore the order is bad. No authentic opinion can be obtained by a comparison of the photocopy of a document, it is contended. This contention cannot also lie. It is for the experts to render an opinion as to whether comparison of the document in question can lead them to any authentic conclusion. It cannot be accepted as an invariable general principle that handwriting cannot be Crl.M.C. No.95 of 2008 -: 3 :- identified if only a photocopy is available. 4. No other worthwhile contention is raised. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge