IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2273 of 2010() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 3979/2010 IN CC.1648/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------ LININ, S/O. SAKTHIDHARAN, LININBHAVAN, PAVITHRESWARAM MURI, PAVITHRESWARAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. M/S. MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ,R. SANTHOSH KUMAR, G. S/O. GOPI, SHEELA MANDIRAM, IVERKALA EAST P.O., PUTHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S. HRITHICK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. No. 2273 of 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 23rd day of June, 2010 ORDER Petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 1648 of 2008 on the file of the J.F.C.M. I, Kottarakkara , which is a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act involving a cheque for Rs. 23,000/- challenges Annexure D order dated 4-6-2010 dismissing his application to send Ext. P1 cheque for expert opinion. According to the petitioner, the employees of the complainant Company had opened an account in the name of the accused and had obtained a cheque and filed the present case by forging his signature in the cheque and that Ext.P1 cheque does not bear his signature or handwriting. 2. The court below dismissed the application on the following grounds:- i) The complainant's witness examined as P.W.1 has deposed that the cheque was brought to the complainant duly filled up and the accused had only put his signature in his presence. When the complainant has no case that the writings in Ext.P1 cheque were written by the accused in his presence the cheque need not be sent to an expert for ascertaining the writings. Crl.M.C. No. 2273 of 2010 -:2:- ii) P.W2 the Manger of Syndicate Bank which is the drawee Bank in respect of the cheque has produced before Court Ext.P11 account opening form, Ext.P2 identity card of the account holder and Ext.P13 cheque issuing Register. The signatures found in those documents are similar to the admitted signatures of the accused. iii) The accused did not send any reply to the statutory notice issued by the complainant and he had no such contention when he received the statutory notice. The above reasons are weighty reasons justifying the dismissal of the petition. I find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly, dismissed. Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani. /true copy/ P.S. to Judge