IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3423 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/08/2008 IN CRMP 347/2008 IN CC.968/2006 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SUNI @ SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.BABY N.T., NELLICKAL HOUSE, PRIYA LANE, ZEENATH JUNCTION, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN ANTONY EDASSERY SMT.ANN EMIL JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. E.P.VARGHESE, S/O.PAULOSE, EDASSERY HOUSE, CHAMPANOOR, ANGAMALY SOUTH P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3423 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petitioner, he had only handed over a signed blank cheque under compelling circumstances. He did not make the other entries in the cheque. He wanted the cheque to be sent to the expert to confirm that the writings in the cheque other than the signature are not authored by him. The application was opposed by the complainant. The complainant took a specific and definite stand that even he does not have a case that the cheque was written by the accused. The case of the complainant is that the accused had brought a cheque with entries made and he had only signed in his presence. That being the factual controversy, the learned Magistrate felt that Crl.M.C. No. 3423 of 2008 -: 2 :- no purpose will be served by sending the cheque to the expert. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. I am unable to understand the grievance. Sending the cheque to the expert cannot be an empty formality to buy time. In the nature of the contentions raised, forwarding the cheque to the expert was not likely to provide any useful information/ evidence. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate committed no error in proceeding to pass the impugned order rejecting the prayer to forward the cheque to the expert. At any rate, invocation of the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. is not at all necessary to interfere with the impugned order. 3. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 3423 of 2008 -: 3 :-