IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2498 of 2009() 1. SREE GANGA, ... Petitioner Vs 1. P.L.NALINAKSHY, ... Respondent 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :06/08/2009 O R D E R THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2498 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of August 2009 ORDER
Heard counsel for petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
2. An order refusing to send the cheque for expert opinion is
under challenge in this revision. Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.198 of
2004 of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Karunagappally arising from a complaint preferred by respondent No.1
for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. After about five years of filing the case petitioner filed
C.M.P.No.3111 of 2009 to send the cheque for expert opinion. Learned
magistrate by the impugned order dismissed the petition. It is
contended by learned counsel that examination of the cheque by an
expert is necessary to prove the defence set up by petitioner.
3. Respondent No.1 when examined as PW1 claimed that
petitioner brought the cheque filled up and signed it in her presence.
Respondent No.1 has no case that petitioner has filled up the cheque.
In view of that case of respondent No.1, it is unnecessary to go into the
question with the aid of expert opinion whether writings in the cheque
are that of petitioner. It remains only a question whether the version
of respondent No.1 that petitioner brought the cheque filled up, can
be believed or not. So far as signature in the cheque is concerned,
learned magistrate has observed that there is no denial of the
Crl.R.P.No.2498 of 2009 2
signature in Ext.P7, reply notice sent on behalf of the petitioner and
instead, that fact is specifically admitted. Learned magistrate has
observed that in the petition, there is no prayer to examine the
signature in the cheque by the expert. On going through the order and
hearing learned counsel I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the
order under challenge calling for interference.
Resultantly this revision fails. It is dismissed.
THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE