IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 514 of 2008()
1. CHELLAN PUTHIYAPURAYIL MOIDEEN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THEKKE THAIVALAPPIL ABDUL SALAM HAJI,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.M.PREM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :04/02/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR , J.
==========================
CRL.M.C. No. 514 of 2008
==========================
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008.
O R D E R
The petitioner, who is the accused in S.T.C. No. 40 of 2005
on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur in a
prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
had denied the transaction and contended that his signature on a
blank cheque leaf was obtained by the Dy.S.P, Taliparamba when
he was called to the police station in connection with a complaint
against the petitioner’s brother-in-law to whom the petitioner
allegedly owes some money. The petitioner’s request for sending
the cheque to the handwriting expert was allowed and the
petitioner remitted the necessary batta and fee. Subsequently
the specimen signature and the writings of Dy.S.P, who was
examined as DW2 in the case, was taken. Thereafter the
petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 20/2008 before the court below
praying to recall DW2 and to take his specimen handwriting in
the presence of the petitioner alleging that on the date of which
the specimen writings were taken, the petitioner could not be
CRL. M.C. NO. 514/2008 : 2:
present in court in connection with the death of the mother-in-
law of his daughter. The court below dismissed the said
application as per the impugned order dated 15.01.2008.
2. As rightly observed by the learned Magistrate, there is
no reason to doubt that the specimen writings of DW2 who is a
fairly senior police officer was not taken according to law and that
instead the specimen writings of some other persons had been
taken. The petition filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed
by the court below. He having remained absent on the relevant
date cannot claim that the specimen writings of DW2 should be
taken in his presence only. I see no ground to interfere with the
impugned order.
This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
CRL. M.C. NO. 514/2008 : 3: