The High Court, in a criminal miscellany case under Section 482 CrPC, dismissed the petitioner accused's petition challenging the trial court's refusal to submit a cheque for handwriting analysis.
The petition is dismissed. The trial court is directed to dispose of the case within two months.
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. P.S.GOPINATHAN
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2012/14TH CHAITHRA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 3698 of 2011 ( D )
CMP.204/2011 IN C.C.NO.1/2010 of J.M.F.C. - II, PERUMBAVOOR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
P.L.PREMAN, S/O.LAKSHMANAN, PEEDIAKKAL HOUSE, NADAMA, THRIPUNITHURA.
BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL
COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-04-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
amk
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
---------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 3698 OF 2011
-------------------------Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2012.
O R D E R
In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the accused in C.C No.1/2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - II, Perumbavoor for offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, assails Annexure A1 order whereby his request for sending Ext.P1 cheque to a hand writing expert to get opinion regarding the hand writing in Ext.P1 was declined.
Crl.M.C.No. 3698 OF 2011 2
examined as DW1. Thereafter, the petitioner filed C.M.P.No.204/2011 seeking an order to forward of Ext.P1
cheque to the hand writing expert for getting opinion regarding the hand writing in Ext.P1 cheque. By the impugned order dated 15-10-2011, the trial court dismissed the petition after entering into a finding that the expert opinion regarding the hand writing of the cheque is not an absolute necessity to decide the case and request
was to delay trial of the case instituted in 2005.
issuance of Ext.P1 cheque and the signature thereon are admitted by the petitioner. But his case is that the complainant stood as a surety in a kuri in which the petitioner was a subscriber and that there was default for payment of the amount and a sum of Rs.70,000/- was attached from the salary of the first respondent. At that
Crl.M.C.No. 3698 OF 2011 3
time a blank cheque was obtained and misusing the cheque,
according to the petitioner the prosecution was launched.
respondent would submit that the first respondent has no case that the hand writing in Ext.P1 cheque is that of the petitioner. Therefore, I find merit in the conclusion of the trial court that an expert opinion regarding the hand writing is not necessary for the adjudication of the case. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent during the course of her evidence had deposed that the hand writing in the cheque is that of the petitioner. Even if it is so, and it is revealed that the hand writing in the cheque leaf is not that of the petitioner, that may not be a reason to reject the prosecution case as such. The trial court also had taken note of the fact that the case
was filed in 2005 and the petitioner had been delaying the
Crl.M.C.No. 3698 OF 2011 4
disposal of the case one way or other and that the plea now advanced can be proved by other circumstances also. It is
not disputed that the defence now set up can be proved other evidence and circumstance. Therefore, the conclusion of the trial court is not erroneous. In the above circumstance, I find no merit in the petition.
In the result, this petition is dismissed. The trial court is directed to dispose of the case, as early as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, untrammeled by the observation in this order or in the impugned order.
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
amk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether expert opinion regarding handwriting of the cheque is necessary for adjudication of the case under Section 138 NI Act.
Whether the High Court should allow the request to send the cheque to a handwriting expert or dismiss the petition.
Whether the trial court erred in concluding that expert opinion was not an absolute necessity given the facts of the case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.L.PREMAN
O.N.SATHI
STATE OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
