IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 317 of 2009() ------------------------ CRRP.41/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE ST.2599/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOZHIKODE (CMP 485/2007) .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- ABDUL SALAM, S/O.MOOTHAMU, ARANCHIKKAL HOUSE, PATHAPPIRIYAM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACT COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE CO.PVT.LTD., NO.66, ARCOT ROAD, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ASSISTANT SAVITHA.K.V. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.317 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance has been taken. The prosecution evidence has already been adduced. The matter is at the stage of defence evidence. The petitioner has taken a stand even in the reply to the notice of demand that the cheque was handed over not for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt or liability, but only as security as a blank signed cheque in some earlier transactions. It is the specific case of the petitioner that except the signature and the writing of the name of the petitioner, no other entry in the cheque is made by him. At the defence stage the petitioner wanted the cheque to be sent to the expert. He wanted it to be ascertained whether the other entries in the cheque are in his handwriting. The application was opposed. The trial court and the court of revision took the view that there is no specific assertion by the complainant that the other entries in the cheque are in the handwriting of the petitioner/accused. In these circumstances, it was held that the cheque need not be sent to the expert. Crl.M.C. No.317 of 2009 2 2. I must alertly remind myself that I am called upon to invoke and exercise the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C against an order passed by the trial court and confirmed by the revisional court. I do not want to embark on a detailed discussion on merits of the dispute. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or ought to be invoked. The counsel apprehends that the trial court may feel that it is bound by the observations in the impugned orders. I make it clear that the trial court must consider the plea of the accused that the cheque was handed over not for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt or liability, but only as security as a blank signed cheque with name and signature alone written by the accused, on merits and in accordance with law. No observations in the impugned orders can be construed as sufficient to absolve the trial court of the responsibility to consider that plea on merits and in accordance with law. 3. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-