High Court bench dismissed criminal revision petition challenging lower court's refusal to send cheque to expert for age-of-signature determination. Court held defence version implausible and interference unnecessary.
The request to send the cheque to a handwriting expert to ascertain the age of the signature was denied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 28TH BHADRA 1929
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 507 of 2007(C)
-----------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/01/2007 IN CMP 1127/06 IN ST.7/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI
REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED
VENU MADHAVAN K.C., ARCHANA, M.L.A.ROAD, KOVOOR, CHEVAYOOR P.O., CALICUT-17.
BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU
RESPONDENTS: REPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
BY ADV. SRI.A.K.MADHAVAN UNNI SRI.S.RAMACHANDRAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.S.SIVAKUMAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
Crl. R.P. No. 507 OF 2007 C
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2007
O R D E R
Petitioner, who is the accused in S.T.No.7/06 on the file of the JFCM-II(Forest Offences), Manjeri, challenges the order dated 4.1.06 in CMP.No.1127/06 filed by the petitioner to send Ext.P1 cheque to an expert for obtaining for expert opinion regarding the age of the signature put on Ext.P1 cheque.
Going by the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein, the accused borrowed Rs.75,000/- in the year 2005 and when the amount was demanded, he issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 2.1.05 for the said amount. Annexure-C produced in this revision is the reply sent by the accused to the statutory notice issued by the complainant. In that reply, he has specifically contended that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant in the year 1992 and had given a signed blank cheque, that he repaid the said amount in the year 1992 itself but the cheque was not returned and the complainant told him that the cheque was misplaced and while he went to gulf, he told the accused that as and when the cheque is traced out, it will be given to his
Crl.R.P.No.507/07
: 2 :
family members. He came back in the year 2000. If the complainant is to be believed, the cheque was issued in the year 2005 and if the accused is to be believed, the cheque was issued in the year 1992. There is a long gap of 13 years between the two transactions. After the 313 Cr.P.C. examination is over, the petitioner filed the present application for sending the cheque to the handwriting expert for ascertaining the age of the signature. The court below has virtually held even before the trial of the case is over, that the defence version as stated in the reply is false. Going by the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court reported in State Vs. Chaudhary [1996 (1) KLT 454 (SC)] the accused is entitled to request the court to send the disputed documents to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion. In the decision reported in Aravindakshan Nair K.R. Vs. Essen Bankers and others [ILR 2007 (3) Ker. 312], this court had exercised the power to send the cheque in question to the handwriting expert for comparison. The material downloaded from the Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi will show that one of the aspects which is dealt with by the Documents Division of the Forensic Science Laboratory is ascertainment of relative or absolute age of the documents. If the accused is able to establish that the signature on the cheque in question was put in the year 1992 and not in the year 2005 as alleged by the complainant, it will falsify the complainant’s case.
Crl.R.P.No.507/07
: 3 :
Crl.R.P.No.507/07
: 4 :
entertained a doubt as to the genuineness of the signature and inspite of that that court held against the accused. It was in that context that this court came to the conclusion that where there was doubt regarding the genuineness of the signature the prudent course open to the court is to leave it to the wisdom of the expert rather than that of the court itself since it is not desirable that the court should perform the role of an expert. I see no good ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below. I am fortified in this conclusion by the decisions reported in Francis Vs. Pradeep [ 2004 (2) KLT 1080] and Baby Thomas Vs. T.T. Paul and Another [2007 (3) KHC 732].
This revision is accordingly dismissed.
(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to request the court to send the disputed cheque to a handwriting expert to ascertain the age of the signature.
Whether the defence version that the cheque was issued in 1992 as a blank signed cheque is believable given the circumstances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State Vs. ChaudharyReferred¶26
[1996 (1) KLT 454 (SC)]
Aravindakshan Nair K.R. Vs. Essen Bankers and othersDistinguished¶26
[ILR 2007 (3) Ker. 312] · Who else cites this
Francis Vs. PradeepReferred¶30
2004 (2) KLT 1080
Baby Thomas Vs. T.T. Paul and AnotherReferred¶30
[2007 (3) KHC 732]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
VENU MADHAVAN K.C.
A.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
STATE OF KERALA
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
