IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 500 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.170/2009 on the file of the J.F.C.M. II (Addl. Munsiff), Kasaragod .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- KARICHERY BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 50, S/O. LATE MELATH KUNHAMBU NAIR, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT PERIYA HOUSE, MUNNAD PULIYARAKKAL, P.O.MUNNAD, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, AGED 50, S/O. A.KUNHAMBU NAIR, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT BARE - VADAKKUMTHOTTI, BARE VILLAGE, P.O.BARE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R2 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. No. 500 of 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 24th day of May, 2010 ORDER Heard both sides. Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 170 of 2009 on the file of the J.F.C.M. II (Addl. Munsiff) Kasaragod for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. With regard to the same cheque in question the complainant had filed O.S. No. 99 of 2008 before the Sub Court, Palakkad. According to the petitioner, the common contention both before the civil court and the criminal court is that he had issued a signed blank cheque not in the year 2008 but in the year 1997 and, therefore, the case of the complainant/plaiantiff that the cheque was executed in the year 2008 was false. In the civil suit, the petitioner had sought expert opinion to determine the age of the signature on the cheque and also whether the writings appearing in the cheque bear the same age as the signature. The civil court has sent the disputed cheque to the Fingerprint Bureau. The report of the expert is awaited by the Crl.M.C. No. 500 of 2010 -:2:- Civil Court. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed C.M.P. No.1555/09 for an expert opinion in respect of the very same cheque. As per Annexure E order dated 1-1-2008 the learned Magistrate dismissed the application holding that the cheque and the other documents produced before the criminal Court are all photocopies of the originals and no useful purpose will be served by sending the same to the expert. It is the said order which is assailed here. 2. I Heard both sides. 3. The order passed by the Magistrate cannot be faulted because photocopy of the cheque and the other documents cannot be sent to the expert for comparison. In as much as the opinion of the expert is awaited by the Civil Court in the civil suit founded on the same cause of action, interests of justice will be adequately met by directing the J.F.C.M. II, Kasaragod to await the result of the expert. On receipt of the expert opinion in the civil suit the petitioner shall produce a certified copy of the same before the learned Magistrate, within two weeks of receipt of the expert opinion. The learned Magistrate shall thereafter dispose of C.C. No. 170 of 2009 in accordance with law. This Crl. M.C. is disposed of as above. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, /true copy/ (JUDGE) Crl.M.C. No. 500 of 2010 -:3:- ani.