IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 724 of 2009()
1. SAJEESH.P.V.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SAKTHAN KURIES AND LOANS (P) LTD.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JIJO PAUL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :19/02/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
CRL.M.C. NO. 724 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009.
O R D E R
This petition is filed to direct the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Thrissur to send the disputed signature in
Annexure J for expert opinion to a second expert allowing
Annexure K petition in the interest of justice. The petitioner
before the Court is an accused who is facing trial u/Ss.416,
417, 420 and 422 IPC. It is with respect to the issuance of
cheque where the execution and signature of the cheque are
disputed by the petitioner. At his instance the cheque was
sent for expert opinion of handwriting and signature by an
expert and that report has been received and the matter is
proceeded thereafter. The petitioner contends before me
that the report submitted by the expert is scientifically
incorrect which requires interference and a decision cannot
be formed on the basis of such a report. It is in this
background he has filed Annexure K petition before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate to send the document for an opinion by
CRL.M.C. 724 OF 2009
-:2:-
another expert. There is no point in permitting examination
of a document by experts after experts. When an expert
report is filed which has only the value of an opinion
evidence the parties are at liberty to challenge that report
and when the Court is satisfied that the said report is not
some thing which cannot be scientifically relied upon by a
Court of law, the parties are reverted back to the original
position and therefore a necessity may arise to get a fresh
report. So what can be done so far as this case is concerned
is to permit the present petitioner to adduce evidence by
challenging the report which is available before the Court by
examination of the expert or other witnesses and when that
material is available before the Court it will be possible for
the Court to arrive at a decision regarding the question
whether another expert’s report is to be received or not.
Therefore the Crl.Appeal is disposed of as follows:
(1) I direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to
permit the present petitioner to adduce defence evidence
challenging the correctness of the expert report by
examining the expert or other independent witnesses.
CRL.M.C. 724 OF 2009
-:3:-
(2) When it is over the Court may get a picture
regarding the correctness or acceptance of the report and
therefore at that stage the Court can consider Annexure K
petition, i.e. the petition filed for referring the matter to
another expert and take a decision on the same and
thereafter dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
The CRL.M.C. is disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-