IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3370 of 2007() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN C.M.P. NO. 2910 OF 2007 IN C.C. NO. 811 OF 2005 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.C.M., MAVELIKKARA REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ RAMAKRISHNAN K., AGED 65 YEARS, SREE REKHA, WEST FORT, MAVELIKARA. BY ADV. SRI.N.SURESH RESPONDENTS: COUNTER PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------------- 1. SUNIL ABRAHAM NINAN, PLAMOOTTIL, CHERUKOLE, MAVELIKARA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl. R.P. No. 3370 of 2007 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 27-02-2008 ORDER Petitioner who is the accused in C.C. 811 of 2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Mavelikkara in a prosecution under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 involving a cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- challenges the order dated 25-8-2007 passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing C.M.P. No. 2910 of 2007 filed by the petitioner seeking to send the cheque to the expert for ascertaining the age of the signature in the cheque in question. 2. It is true that the learned Magistrate dismissed the application inter alia on the ground that the petitioner should have made the request at the earliest possible opportunity. Since the request was made at the stage of defence evidence, the accused cannot be blamed for not filing the petition earlier. But the learned Magistrate has also found that the petition was nothing but part of a dialatory tactics and there is no bona fides in the request. 3. No doubt, the complainant had deposed that the cheque duly filled up was brought by the accused. But the case of the accused is also that he had handed over a signed blank cheque to the Crl. R.P. No. 3370 of 2007 -:2:- complainant as security while availing of a loan of Rs. 15,000/- and he had substantially discharged the said loan and while so the complainant had misutilised the cheque by filing the present complaint. 4. Except the self interested statement of the accused, there is nothing to show that the amount advanced was only Rs. 15,000/-. The very fact that he has admittedly handed over a signed blank cheque to the complainant while availing of a loan indicates that he had given implied authority to the complainant to use the signed blank cheque as a negotiable instrument in the event of default committed by him. Admittedly, he has committed default in discharging the loan the amount even going by his own allegations. Therefore, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the court below. I am fortified in this view by the decisions in Francis v. Pradeep - 2004 (2) KLT 1080 and Baby Thomas v. T.T. Paul and Another - 2007 (3) KHC 732 . This Crl.R.P is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani. Crl. R.P. No. 3370 of 2007 -:3:-