The petitioner, accused in a cheque dishonour case, sought an expert opinion on the cheque. The court held that since the prosecution witness only attested the signing and not the writing of the entry, expert examination would serve no purpose. The plea was dismissed.
Rejection of the plea to send the cheque for expert opinion.
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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 25TH MAGHA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 1026 of 2018
C.M.P.NO. 6789/2017 IN C.C. NO. 3891/2014 of TEMPORARY SPECIAL COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I. ACT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
----------------
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED
SIDDHIQUE, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. LATE MOIDEEN T.C 32/1082-2, ALL SAINTS COLLEGE, BEACH (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.S.VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:-:
1. SREEKUMAR, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. SUKUMARAN, T.C. 48/262 (3), PRA 89, AMBALATHARA, POONTHURA (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 026.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1026 of 2018 ()
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| ANNEXURE 1:- | TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 09.04.2014 |
|---|---|
| ANNEXURE II:- | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.MC NO. 6418/2016 DATED 08.11.2016. |
| ANNEXURE III:- | TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN C.M.P. NO. 6789/2017 IN C.C. NO. 3891/2014 FILED BEFORE THE TEMPORARY SPECIAL COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I. ACT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 06.12.2017. |
| ANNEXURE IV:- | CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P. NO. 6789/2017 IN C.C. NO. 3891/2014 PASSED BY THE TEMPORARY SPECIAL COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I. ACT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 21.12.2017. |
| ANNEXURE V:- | TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 17.03.2014 |
| ANNEXURE VI:- | TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE CROSS EXAMINATION |
| ANNEXURE VII:- | TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN C.C. NO. 132/2014 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IV (MOBILE COURT), THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. |
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
STK
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.1026 of 2018
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2018
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.3891/2014 on the files of the court below. The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.6789/2017 before the court below praying for sending Ext.P1 cheque for expert opinion. The court below rejected the said petition as per Annexure-4 order.
petitioner writing anything in Ext.P1 cheque. The only evidence of PW1 is that PW1 had witnessed the signing of Ext.P1 cheque by the petitioner. PW1 stated that the
Crl.M.C. No.1026 of 2018
-: 2 :-
petitioner signed Ext.P1 cheque in the presence of PW1. Since PW1 did not state that PW1 had seen the petitioner writing Ext.P1 cheque, no purpose will be served even if Ext.P1 cheque is sent for expert opinion. In view of the above reason, the court below was perfectly justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking for sending Ext.P1 cheque for expert opinion.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands dismissed.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
STK
//TRUE COPY//
//P.A. TO JUDGE//
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sending the cheque for expert opinion will serve any purpose when only the signature needs proof and the witness could not state the accused witnessing the accused writing.
Whether the contents of the cheque entry were written in the handwriting of the accused.
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
