IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 639 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2010 IN CM.P 469/2010 IN ST.1572/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, THAMARASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------------------- A.V. ABDURAHIMAN HAJI, EDACHERIYIL HOUSE, CHALIKKODE, P.O. ELETTIL, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.K. ABDUL MAJEED, S/O. AHAMMED KUTTY HAJI, POOVAMULLAKANDI HOUSE, POONOOR P.O., UNNIKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 639 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010. ORDER The accused in S.T. No. 1572 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Thamarassery in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 involving a cheque for Rs.4,00,000/-, challenges the dismissal of C.M.P. No. 469 of 2010 as per which he had sought the forwarding of the cheque in question to the handwriting expert for a report as to whether the date in the cheque was in the handwriting of the petitioner. The said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate as per order dated 15.02.2010. 2. As rightly observed by the learned Magistrate, even the complainant examined as PW1 has no case that the date of the cheque was put by the accused in his presence. All that he deposed was that the accused wrote his name and put his signature in the cheque in his presence. The fact Crl.R.P. No. 639/2010 : 2 : that the cheque contains the petitioner's signature is admitted by the petitioner also, even though he has an explanation for the complainant's custody of the cheque leaf. Under these circumstances, the court below was right in dismissing the application for ascertaining the handwriting in the date put on the cheque. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 639/2010 : 3 :