IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 170 of 2006()
1. M.BABY, BABY QUARTERS, VENDOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. JACOB.G. PUTHAN VEEDU,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.ABRAHAM (SR.)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/01/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.170 of 2006
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under
Section 138 of the N.I Act. The trial has started and the matter
is at the defence stage now. At the defence stage, the petitioner
wanted the cheque to be sent to the expert for comparison of
signature. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order has
rejected the prayer. The petitioner has hence come to this Court
with this Crl.M.C.
2. A revision petition is not maintainable, the order
impugned being an interlocutory order. Normally the petitioner
must therefore wait to challenge the order along with the final
order/judgment, which is to be passed in the prosecution under
Section 138 of the N.I Act. The petitioner has rushed to this
Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to assail the
order passed by the learned Magistrate.
3. I shall scrupulously avoid any expression of opinion
which would prejudice the interests of the petitioner and disable
him to challenge the impugned order, if necessary along with
Crl.M.C.No.170 of 2006 2
the judgment to be passed in the prosecution by the learned
Magistrate. I shall confine myself to the consideration whether
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can, need or ought to be
invoked in favour of the petitioner at this stage to interfere with
the impugned order.
4. The impugned order reveals that the petitioner
accepts that the cheque was handed over by him as security to
another person. The learned Magistrate took note of the fact
that inherently the plea that a blank unsigned cheque was
handed over as security does not stand to reason and logic. The
learned Magistrate further observed that in the cross
examination of the complainant, no specific dispute about the
signature was raised. The learned Magistrate further noted that
in the 313 statement also, no specific denial of signature had
been raised. The learned Magistrate did also observe that the
notice of demand under Section 138 of the N.I Act was not
replied to at all.
5. The above circumstances do compellingly suggest to
me that this is not a fit case where the extraordinary inherent
jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can
or need be invoked.
Crl.M.C.No.170 of 2006 3
6. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I
may however hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C
will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all
appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned
Magistrate in the course of the trial. Any observation made by
the learned Magistrate in the impugned order or observations
made by this Court in this order shall not fetter the rights of the
petitioner to raise such contentions. The learned Magistrate
must consider all such contentions on merits uninfluenced by
such observations in this order and the impugned order.
7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-