IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1772 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.22/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT NO.1/COMPLAINANT: --------------------- K.B.MOHAMMED,AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KUNHI MOIDEEN KUTTY,KAIPPAD, PADNE,PADNE P.O,KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT & RESPONDENT NO.2/ACCUSED & STATE: --------------- 1. SIVANANDAN A,AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN,EYYAKKAD,NORTH TRIKARIPUR UDINUR P.O,HOSDURG TALUK,KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.1772 OF 2010 (B) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 O R D E R Revision is filed by the complainant in a cheque case challenging the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kasaragod remitting the case to the learned Magistrate, with direction to consider an application moved by the accused to send the cheque involved to an expert for opinion. 2. Notice given, the 1st respondent/accused has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned Magistrate, after trial, has convicted the accused and sentenced him for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. He preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod. From the impugned order, it is seen, after admitting the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge has remitted the case to the learned Magistrate with two sentence order directing to consider an Crl.R.P.NO.1772/2010 2 application, which had been moved by the accused for sending the cheque to an expert. From the submissions made, it is seen that previous to such order, the question referred to above was considered and an order was passed directing the accused to pay the costs fixed, to have a chance for reconsideration of the application moved by him for examination of the cheque through an expert. Procedure followed by the court below was highly irregular. Once the appeal had been admitted against the conviction, the learned Sessions Judge was expected to consider the challenges raised against the conviction as a whole and not on any question as if there was any denial of opportunity for non-consideration of the application moved by the accused for sending the cheque to an expert. In fact, the impugned order would show that there was total non-application of mind by the court below in judging the merit of the challenges raised against the conviction. 3. Setting aside the impugned order, the court below is directed to hear the appeal afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. I make it clear that while disposing the Crl.R.P.NO.1772/2010 3 appeal, if the court finds that there is ground for remitting the case for any reason whatsoever for further enquiry by the court below, the present order will not stand in the way of passing appropriate orders thereof. 4. Parties are directed to mark their appearance through counsel, before the lower appellate court on 11.10.2011. With the above observations, the revision is disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp Crl.R.P.NO.1772/2010 4