P.Premkumar vs Cbi on 23 July, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1907 of 2009()


1. P.PREMKUMAR, S/O. PONNAPPAN PILLAI,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ROSARY PREM @ V.S.ROSARY,

                        Vs



1. CBI, COCHIN, REP.BY THE STANDING
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :23/07/2009

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
            ===========================
            CRL.M.C.No.1907      OF 2009
            ===========================

       Dated this the 23rd day of July,2009

                        ORDER

Petitioners are accused 3 and 5 in C.C.6/2004 on

the file of Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam. At

the defence stage they filed Annexure A application

Crl.M.P.1974/2008, to take their specimen signature and

writings from open court and to send them to an

independent handwriting expert for comparison with the

disputed signatures marked on the side of the

prosecution. Under Annexure B order it was dismissed.

This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure contending that learned Special

Judge did not consider the application in the proper

perspective and wrongly dismissed it holding that the

attempt is to get a second opinion. It was pointed out

that many of the documents sought to be sent to the

expert were not sent to the expert, PW80, and in such

circumstance the dismissal of the application was not

justified. Learned counsel for the CBI submitted that

though vakalath of the fifth accused was not sent to

the expert as stated in Annexure B order, there is no

Crl.M.C.1907/2009 2

reason to interfere with that order and the attempt is only

to protract the trial.

2. On hearing the learned counsel and going through

Annexure B order, it is clear that learned Special Judge

did not consider the application in the proper perspective.

The main reason for dismissal of the application is that it

was an attempt to get a second report. The fact that

signature in the vakalath of the fifth accused was not

compared by PW80 was not taken note of by the Special

Judge. So also whether all the documents which are sought

to be forwarded were examined by PW80 was also not

considered. In such circumstance, Annexure B order is

quashed. Special Judge is directed to reconsider

Crl.M.P.1974/2008 and pass appropriate order in accordance

with law.

Petition is disposed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

———————

W.P.(C).NO. /06

———————

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER,2006