IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1377 of 2007() ------------------------- CC.22/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- A.P.JAYASREE, D/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, PRASANNA SADAN,POONKUNNAM P.O., CHIRAKKADAVU. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. B.SOMASEKHARAN @ S.B.NAIR, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, CHIRAYIL MADATHIL, ANAPRAMBAL,THALAVADY,ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.A.HASSAN FOR R.1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.M.KAMMAPPU FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.2209/07 IN CRL.M.C.NO.1377/07 //DISMISSED// 26.3.09 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, J. ----------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.No.1377 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MARCH, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to set aside Annexure-IX order. That order is passed by the J.F.C.M.-II, Kanjirappally on 19.3.2007 in C.M.P.No.844/2007 in C.C.No.22/98, whereby that petition was allowed in part and the accused was directed to give his specimen signature in the open court. That petition was filed under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act with the prayer to send the signature and handwriting of the accused for comparison before the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. The copy of the petition and the objection filed by the 1st respondent are produced as Annexures X and XI respectively. Earlier, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 311A of Cr.P.C. with the same prayer, copy of which is produced as Annexure-V and it was allowed by the lower court as per Annexure VII order dated 4.12.2006. That order has been challenged by the first respondent before this Court. This CRL.M.C.No.1377/07 -2- Court as per order dated 6.2.2007, copy of which is produced as Annexure VIII, has passed the following order. “3. In as much as the impugned directions are perfectly justifiable by invocation of the powers under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, I am satisfied that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 4. There is a further contention that one of the documents, sought to be sent as standard/admitted writing, is not really admitted by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate shall consider whether there is any admission of such writing and shall forward the document to the expert only after satisfying himself that the same is admitted/standard writing.” Thereafter, a fresh petition, Annexure X, is filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein the impugned order Annexure-IX is passed by the learned Magistrate. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and for the first respondent. 3. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order dated 4.12.2006 in C.M.P.No.4965/06 CRL.M.C.No.1377/07 -3- passed by the learned Magistrate, copy of which is produced as Annexure VII has been confirmed by this Court as per order dated 6.2.2007 in W.P.(C)No.33248/06, Annexure-VIII. Accordingly, the petitioner is satisfied by confirming the order of the learned Magistrate, Annexure VII. It is argued by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the letter dated 23.12.1994 referred in the petition filed by the petitioner on 6.3.2007 ,Annexure X, cannot be sent to the Expert for comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. 4. After hearing both counsel and considering the dispute in the present case, I am satisfied that the following direction can be given to the 1st respondent/accused, to meet the ends of justice. 5. The accused/1st respondent is directed to produce the documents containing his signature and handwriting during the year 1997 and also directed to give the present handwriting and signature in the open court before the learned Magistrate, to send the same along with the disputed documents Exhibits P1 and P2 for comparison, before the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. 6. In the result, the impugned order dated 19.3.2007 of the learned Magistrate in C.M.P.No.844/07 in C.C.No.22/98 is set aside and the following directions are given. CRL.M.C.No.1377/07 -4- 7. The first respondent/accused is directed to produce the documents containing his signature and handwriting during the year 1997 and also directed to give the present handwriting and signature in the open court before the learned Magistrate, to send the same along with the disputed documents Exhibits P1 and P2 for comparison to the Expert. Both parties are directed to appear before the court below on 20.4.2009. 8. It is revealed from the records that C.C.No. 22/98 is pending the file of the J.F.C.M's Court-II, Kanjirappally in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, preferred by the petitioner herein. Considering the nature of the long pending dispute, the learned Magistrate is directed to send the above documents for comparison, without delay and take earnest attempt to get the Expert's opinion without delay and also to dispose of the case at the earliest. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn