IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 724 of 2009() -------------------------------------- C.C.NO.44/2000 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ DR.P.V.SAJEESH, S/O.P.N.VASUDEVAN, CHILDREN'S SPECIALIST, PALAKKAL HOUSE, IV/533-B, KAYAL ROAD, NALAMKALLU, P.O.ARIMBOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAKTHAN KURIES AND LOANS (P) LTD., PALLIKULAM ROAD, THRISSUR, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MOHAN C.JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, CHEMBAN HOUSE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.998/09 IN CRL.M.C.NO.724/2009 DISMISSED 19/02/2009 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 724 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009. O R D E R This petition is filed to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur to send the disputed signature in Annexure J for expert opinion to a second expert allowing Annexure K petition in the interest of justice. The petitioner before the Court is an accused who is facing trial u/Ss.416, 417, 420 and 422 IPC. It is with respect to the issuance of cheque where the execution and signature of the cheque are disputed by the petitioner. At his instance the cheque was sent for expert opinion of handwriting and signature by an expert and that report has been received and the matter is proceeded thereafter. The petitioner contends before me that the report submitted by the expert is scientifically incorrect which requires interference and a decision cannot be formed on the basis of such a report. It is in this background he has filed Annexure K petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to send the document for an opinion by CRL.M.C. 724 OF 2009 -:2:- another expert. There is no point in permitting examination of a document by experts after experts. When an expert report is filed which has only the value of an opinion evidence the parties are at liberty to challenge that report and when the Court is satisfied that the said report is not some thing which cannot be scientifically relied upon by a Court of law, the parties are reverted back to the original position and therefore a necessity may arise to get a fresh report. So what can be done so far as this case is concerned is to permit the present petitioner to adduce evidence by challenging the report which is available before the Court by examination of the expert or other witnesses and when that material is available before the Court it will be possible for the Court to arrive at a decision regarding the question whether another expert's report is to be received or not. Therefore the Crl.Appeal is disposed of as follows: (1) I direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to permit the present petitioner to adduce defence evidence challenging the correctness of the expert report by examining the expert or other independent witnesses. CRL.M.C. 724 OF 2009 -:3:- (2) When it is over the Court may get a picture regarding the correctness or acceptance of the report and therefore at that stage the Court can consider Annexure K petition, i.e. the petition filed for referring the matter to another expert and take a decision on the same and thereafter dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The CRL.M.C. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-