High Court Kerala High Court

M.E. Shamsudheen vs Thomas Paile on 21 April, 2009

Kerala High Court
M.E. Shamsudheen vs Thomas Paile on 21 April, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1388 of 2009()


1. M.E. SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 50 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THOMAS PAILE, S/O. PAILE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :21/04/2009

 O R D E R
                           THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                         CRL. M.C. No.1388 of 2009
                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                Dated this the 21st        day of April,    2009

                                   O R D E R

————–

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.2.

2. Petitioner is challenging Annexure A4 order dated 7.3.2009

of the court below refusing to send the cheque to the expert to

ascertain the age of the writings therein. Petitioner submits that

learned Magistrate, by the impugned order has refused an opportunity

to the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his contention.

3. I have gone through the order. Case now set up by the

petitioner is that the cheque in question was issued during the year

1993 and that respondent No.1 who stealthily got the cheque filled up

and presented the same. Learned Magistrate observed that no such

suggestion was put to respondent No.1 when he was examined as

P.W.1 and even when P.W.2, Manager of the Bank was examined.

Petitioner had no such case till the examination of D.W.1. It is not the

case of the petitioner that any reply was given to the statutory notice

intimating him about the dishonour of the cheque. It is not as if

whenever there is a prayer for sending the cheque to the expert that

request has to be acceded to. In the facts and circumstances of the

CRL. 1388 of 2009

-: 2 :-

case learned Magistrate was justified in refusing the prayer made by

the petitioner. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order

impugned requiring interference by this Court,

Crl. M.C. is dismissed.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

vsv

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

===================
S.A. NO. OF 2001
===================

J U D G M E N T

APRIL, 2009