Accused sought to quash an order postponing consideration of an application for expert handwriting comparison. Held that accused must decide proof mode; expert report is valid. Order quashed.
Annexure-IV order quashed; Magistrate directed to pass appropriate order after hearing parties.
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 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931
Crl.MC.No. 1022 of 2009()
------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/02/2009 IN CMP.585/2009 IN CC.189/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA
PETITIONER(S): IST ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------------------
ANIL P.PAUL, S/O.PAULOSE, AGED 48, PAINADATH HOUSE, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.K.SOYUZ
RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------------------------------
1. M.P.KURIAKOSE, S/O.M.P.KURIAN, MYLALEYIL HOUSE, KIDANGOOR.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV.MR.JAISON JOSEPH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. B.VINOD
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
CRL.M.C.NO.1022 OF 2009
Dated 4th August 2009
O R D E R
Petitioner is the first accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.189/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva. Petitioner filed Annexure-III petition, at the defence stage to sent Annexure-II letter marked as Ext.P4 at the time of examination of first respondent, to an expert to compare the handwriting seen therein with the admitted handwriting of the petitioner. Under Annexure-IV order learned Magistrate closed the petition recording that the question whether opinion of an expert is necessary or not, will be considered along with the case later, if the court finds that decision of the expert is necessary. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-IV order contending that question whether Annexure-II letter was written by the petitioner or not is a very relevant and crucial fact which would tilt the decision of the case and for that
CRMC 1022/09
2
purpose report of the expert is necessary and therefore, learned Magistrate was not justified in not allowing the application.
3
CRMC 1022/09
the petitioner and first respondent and considering the question whether report of an expert is necessary or not.
Petition is disposed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
uj.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an accused is entitled to seek expert opinion to compare handwriting under Section 482 CrPC when the lower court postponed the matter.
Whether the lower court's order postponing the question of necessity for an experts report was justifiable.
Whether the courts or complainant can command the manner of proof in a criminal case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ANIL P.PAUL
M.P.KURIAKOSE AND STATE OF KERALA
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
