K.Somanadha Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 27 June, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2104 of 2008()


1. K.SOMANADHA PILLAI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

2. MATHAI THOMAS, JOSE BHAVAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SHAHEED AHMAD

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :27/06/2008

 O R D E R
                      V. RAMKUMAR , J.
            ==========================
                     Crl.R.P. No. 2104 of 2008
            ==========================
             Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008.

                            ORDER

The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No. 606 of 2005

on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -III (Forest

Offences), Punalur, which is a prosecution under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, involving a cheque for

Rs.1 lakh, challenges the order dated 18.03.2008 passed by the

Magistrate rejecting his application filed as Crl. M.P. No. 899 of

2008 requesting the forwarding of the cheque in question for

expert opinion.

2. The revision petitioner has admitted his signature in the

cheque in question. According to him, it was offered as security

to one Shibu Varghese and the complainant Mathai Thomas

somehow managed to get possession of the cheque from Shibu

Varghese. If the petitioner had given the cheque in question in

the form of a signed blank cheque as a security to Shibu

Varghese towards whom he admittedly owe liability, then the

natural presumption is that it was intended to be used as a

CRL.R.P. NO. 2104/2008 : 2:

negotiable instrument in the event of the petitioner committed

default in paying amounts due to Shibu Varghese. After receipt

of the statutory notice in this case from Mathai Thomas, the

petitioner does not appear to have taken any steps against Shibu

Varghese in the year 2005 itself for unauthorisedly parting with

his possession of the cheque. For resolving the dispute raised by

the petitioner, the other writings in the cheque in question

including the age of those writings need not be examined by

sending the cheque for expert opinion. The learned Magistrate

was right in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. I am fortified

in this conclusion by the decision in Francis v. Pradeep (2004

(2) KLT 1080) and Baby Thomas v. T.T Paul and another

(2007(3) KHC 732).

This revision is accordingly dismissed.

Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

rv

CRL.R.P. NO. 2104/2008 : 3: