IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 386 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2009 IN Crl.MP 1292/2009 IN CC.3013/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------- MRS.JESSY JEEMON, HEALTH INSPECTOR, RESIDING AT COCHIN CORPORATION QUARTERS K.S.N. MENON ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-16. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SMT.MOLLY KOSHY RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. K.A.THOMAS, KADAVIPARAMBIL HOUSE, HI GA/13, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA P.O. COCHIN - 682020. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K. MOHANAN, J. ............................................ Crl. R.P. No. 386 of 2010 ........................................... Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The petitioner has approached the trial court by filing a petition under Section 243(2) of the Cr.PC with a prayer to send Exhibit P1 cheque to the forensic laboratory for comparison of handwriting and signature contained there in. 3. From the impugned order it appears that in an earlier occasion the petitioner had moved an application calling upon the complainant to produce the document. The learned Magistrate after scrutiny of the cheque in question came to the conclusion that there is much Crl. RP 386/2010 2 resemblance of the signature of the accused that contained in the cheque as well as the admitted signatures of the accused. The learned Magistrate has specifically observed that if the petitioner succeeds to probabilise her defence version by tendering evidence then the application will be considered on merit. According to the learned Magistrate as per the available records, the petition lacks bona fide and cannot be allowed at that time. From the order itself it is clear that the petition preferred by accused was not dismissed, on the other hand, it is kept in abeyance. 4. As the petition moved by the accused has not dismissed and there was observation to the effect that the application will be considered on merit if the situation so warranted at the appropriate time, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate and Crl. RP 386/2010 3 therefore this Crl. Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly. V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE rkc