IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1803 of 2009() ------------------------- ST.991/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- ABDUL AZEEZ, KOTTAPPURATHU VEEDU, MARAMPALLY.P.O. ALUVA. BY ADV. MR.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. MAHIN., S/O. AMEEN, RASEENA MANZIL, JONAKAPPURAM, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1803 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 2nd June 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in S.T.991/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam. After closing of the evidence, petitioner filed C.M.P.1812/2009, an application to send Ext.P1 dishonoured cheque to an expert of Forensic Science Laboratory to compare the handwriting in Ext.P1 with the handwriting of the first respondent/complainant. Case of the petitioner is that after closing the evidence, when the counsel appearing for petitioner verified the court records it is found that handwriting in Ext.P1 cheque and that of the petitioner are identical and in such circumstances, it is necessary to send Ext.P1 to the expert. It was argued that as per the version of PW1, Ext.P1 cheque was written and bought by the accused and thereafter signed and handed it over to the first respondent. Under Annexure-A3 order Magistrate dismissed the application. This petition is filed under Section 482 CRMC 1803/09 2 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A3 order and to send Ext.P1 to the expert as sought for. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that when the complainant was originally cross examined, the counsel appearing for petitioner was not aware that the handwriting in Ext.P1 is that of the first respondent and later when the records were perused, it is found that handwriting in Ext.P1 is that of the first respondent and if the handwriting in Ext.P1 is that of first respondent, in the light of his evidence, his case can only be disbelieved and therefore report of an expert is absolutely necessary to have a just decision of the case and therefore invoking the power under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Magistrate should have allowed the application and sent Ext.P1 to the expert. 4. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and going through Annexure-A3 copy of the dishonoured cheque and the signature of first respondent seen in the photocopy of the deposition, I do not find any reason to accept CRMC 1803/09 3 the submission of the learned counsel that handwritings are identical and therefore it is to be sent to the expert as sought for. Annexure-A3 order is perfectly legal, I find no reason to interfere with that order. If advised, petitioner is entitled to challenge Annexure-A3 order, along with the judgment, if it goes against him. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.