IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 3317 of 2007()
1. T.K.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, AGED 43 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ADUKKADUKKAM VEETIL KUMARAN NAIR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SANTHOSHKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :05/10/2007
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Crl. R.P. No. 3317 OF 2007 D
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2007
O R D E R
In view of the proposed disposal of the revision, notice
to the respondent complainant is dispensed with in this revision.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in
C.C.No.1203/04 on the file of the JFCM-I, Hosdurg which is a
prosecution for an offence punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in respect of a cheque for an
amount of Rs.3,60,000/-. According to the revision petitioner, the
complainant, who is none other than the husband of the younger
sister of the revision petitioner, had stolen the cheque dated
27.1.04 entrusted by the revision petitioner with his wife to be
handed over to an LIC agent without writing the amount for
payment of the exact premium amount (which by practice, used to
be filled by the LIC agent himself). After the evidence of the
complainant was over and after the examination of the revision
petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C., the revision petitioner filed
CMP.No.1988/07 for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert
to ascertain the overwriting and correction in the date of the
Crl.R.P.No.3317/07
: 2 :
cheque. According to him, the cheque, which was entrusted with
his wife, was dated 27.1.04 which was wrongly corrected as
27.7.04. After hearing both sides, the court below as per order
dated 19.5.2007 allowed the said request for ascertaining the
overwriting and correction in the date of the cheque. But when the
revision petitioner filed Annexure-A2 forwarding note before court
the request thereunder was to examine and ascertain the
genuineness of the correction in the cheque as well as the
handwriting seen in the cheque. There was no such additional
direction in CMP No.1988/07 and noticing the additional request
made in the forwarding note, the court below as per order dated
13.7.07 declined his prayer. The operative portion of the order
reads as follows:-
“Therefore, since the accused has not
taken steps in spite of sufficient
opportunities given, the prayer of the
accused now made is declined as belated.”
3. Since there appeared some ambiguity in the operative
portion of the impugned order, the learned Magistrate was asked
to clarify. As per letter dated 29.9.07, the Magistrate has clarified
that CMP No.1988/07 filed by the revision petitioner/accused for
Crl.R.P.No.3317/07
: 3 :
an opinion from the handwriting expert to ascertain the overwriting
and correction of date in the cheque in question, was allowed on
19.5.07 and since in the forwarding notes filed by the accused on
1.6.07, he had also made a further prayer to send the cheque for
comparison of the handwriting in the cheque, the additional prayer
was disallowed and that so far the accused has not taken any
steps in terms of the order in CMP.No.1988/07. Thus, what has
been disallowed is only the additional prayer made in the
forwarding note. The revision petitioner is, therefore, given two
weeks’ time to file a revised forwarding note in terms of the order
dated 19.5.07 passed in CMP.No.1988/07.
This revision is disposed of accordingly.
(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks