IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1287 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/03/2008 IN CMP 843/2008 IN ST.2451/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NILAMBUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ SURESH KUMAR, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, AGED KRISHNAS HOUSE, CHAKKALAKUTHU, NILAMBUR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ 1. P.K.BALRAM, PANIKKARATHU KALATHIL HOUSE, POOKOTTUMPADAM P.O. NILAMBUR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.1287 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15 th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner who is the accused in S.T.No.2451 of 2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Nilambur challenges the order dated 28.03.08 in C.M.P.No.843 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for sending Ext.P3 cheque for Rs.70,000/- to the handwriting expert for ascertaining whether the date in the said cheque has been written in the handwriting of the accused or not. 2. This is a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant's allegation that the cheque was filled up by the accused who had put his signature in the cheque is admitted by the revision petitioner whose only contention was that he had written the name of the complainant and also the amount in Ext.P3 cheque as demanded by one Baby to whom he has entrusted the cheque while availing of a loan of Rs.50,000/- and the date alone in Ext.P3 cheque was not written by him. Even the complainant has no case that the date was written by the accused in his presence. The question Crl.R.P.No.1287 of 2008 2 as to whether the date was put by the accused or some body else cannot be decided by forwarding the cheque to the handwriting expert. It is for the accused to prove the version put forward by him as a justification for the signature and the writings in the cheque. At any rate, as rightly observed by the learned Magistrate the maximum which the expert could say is that the date portion of the cheque was not filled up in the handwriting of the accused . The complainant himself has admitted this fact in the objection filed by him to the petition filed by the accused. If so, there is no need to send the document to the handwriting expert for comparison. Morever the evidence of the handwriting expert is not conclusive unlike in the case of the Finger Print Expert. As observed by the learned Magistrate the petitioner is protracting the proceedings by making the above request. This Crl.R.P, which is devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 15 th day of July, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj