Dismissed

Annakkutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2012Crl.MC/441/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, first accused in a cheque dispute, challenged an order declining a request to forward a cheque for handwriting expert opinion. Court held no error was committed by the trial court as the signature was admitted and writings were not significant.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; order declining request for handwriting opinion was upholds as no error was committed by the trial court.

Annakkutty Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/11TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 441 of 2012 (A)

¶6

CMP.NO.5752/2011 IN ST.595/2009 of J.M.F.C.-I, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

ANNAKKUTTY

¶9

S/O. FRANCIS, MOTTATHIL HOUSE, CHANDANAKKAM PARA PAYYAVOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.B. PRAJITH

¶11

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶15

SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND CONSULTANT

¶17

K.DASAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, TAVAKKARA KANNUR-670001.

¶18

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

amk

¶21

P.S.GOPINATHAN, J

¶22

----------------------------

¶23

Crl.M.C.No.441 OF 2012

¶24

-------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2012.

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

In this petition under Section 482 of the

¶27

Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the first accused in S.T. No.595/2009 on the file of the

¶28

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - I, Kannur,

¶29

assails an order dated 16-12-2011 in

¶30

C.M.P.No.5752/2011, whereby her request for forwarding Ext.P1 cheque to the hand writing expert to get an opinion regarding the hand writings in the

¶31

cheque was declined.

¶32

The trial court dismissed the petition on

¶33

arriving at a finding that the opinion evidence regarding the hand writings would not enure any benefit in the defence, because the petitioner had specifically admitted the signature in the cheque and

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.441 OF 2012 2

¶35

the writings in the cheque are not significant.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and due regard to the nature of the

¶37

defence, I find no error committed by the committal court in declining the request of the petitioner so as to be rectified in exercise of the powers under

¶38

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶39

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

¶40

P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE

¶41

amk

Annakkutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annakkutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Hassan H Shake Vs State of Kerala

Siby Joseph Vs the Kecheri Chit and Finances, Changanassery

P.P.Poulose Vs K.P.Kuriachan

P.v.Sudhakaran Vs State of Kerala

P.S.Varghese @ Scariya Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs State of Kerala