Petitioner filed criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to set aside bail refusal. Denied due to lack of contemporaneous documents for handwriting comparison statutory fee demand upheld.
Petition dismissed. Order of trial court setting aside bail order/maintenance of fee order affirmed.
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 MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 12TH BHADRA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.6145 OF 2019(G)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 1686/2011 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MANISH THAPER AGED 49 YEARS S/O. RAGESH THAPER, BLOCK -A, FLAT NO. 6/C, SKYLINE WILLOW HIGHTS, GOSSAYIKUNNU P.O, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT
BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU SRI.R.N.SANDEEP
RESPONDENTS/STATE&DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031
2 GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD, (H.O 66, ARKOTT ROAD, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 024, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, M.G ROAD, THRISSUR) REP. BY LEGAL CLERK, LONAPPAN B.L, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. V.LONAPPAN, BRAHMAKULAM HOUSE, PONGANAMKADU DESOM, KURICHIKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 006
PP C.K.PRASAD
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.6145/2019
2
ORDER
Dated this the 3rd day of September 2019
In the petition on hand, order dated 03.07.2019 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.I, Thrissur (for short, 'the trial court') in C.M.P No.3993/2019 filed in C.C No.1686/2011 is sought to be set aside. An application was filed by the accused in C.C No.1686/2011 before the trial court seeking to send the signature and handwritings in Ext.P2, the disputed cheque, based on which the prosecution was initiated, for getting expert opinion. C.M.P No.938/2015 was allowed by the court by order passed on 12.08.2016 and it was allowed on the following conditions:
“1. The petitioner shall remit necessary fees for examination of the document and produce the receipt. 2. The petitioner shall also provide the writings and specimen signature during the contemporary period and also other admitted signature and writings for comparison.”
Crl.MC.No.6145/2019 3
period and also other admitted signatures and writings, for the purpose of comparison. In the meantime, an application was filed by the petitioner before the trial court seeking to summon certain documents relating to a housing loan taken by him as 30173065897 from State Bank of Travancore, Thrissur, East Fort Branch. It is stated in the application that the loan is still pending and in the loan agreement as well as in other documents related there to, he had affixed his signature. He has also filed an affidavit stating that apart from the documents called for from the Bank, other documents containing his signature and handwritings relating to the period are not available with him. It is stated in the very same application that the Bank Manager has informed in the statement filed by him that the documents called for are not available with the Bank. As per the averments made by the petitioner in the application, an affidavit was filed by him before the trial court stating that other documents containing his handwriting and signature relating to the period of issuance of Ext.P2 were not available with him. An application was filed seeking extension of time for payment of batta, and the said application was also dismissed by the trial court by Annexure-F order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court against
Crl.MC.No.6145/2019
4
the order in the proceedings on hand.
Crl.MC.No.6145/2019 5
already filed an affidavit stating that documents contemporaneous to the execution of Ext.P2 containing handwritings and signatures are not available with him. When the petitioner himself has filed an affidavit before the court that documents relating to the contemporaneous period of execution of Ext.P2 are not available with him and since the Manager of the Bank, wherefrom production of documents have been called for, has filed a statement that documents are not available with the Bank, this Court finds that no purpose would be served by reversing the order under challenge, the petition on hand deserves dismissal.
In the result, Crl.M.C being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
JJ/
Crl.MC.No.6145/2019
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12/8/16 IN CMP 938/15 IN CC 1686/11 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO. 1, THRISSUR ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 22/2/2017 IN C.C 1236/11 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO. 1, THRISSUR ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED ON 6/8/18 IN C.C 1686/11 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO. 1, THRISSUR ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF CMP NO. 3993/19 IN CC 1686/11 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO. 1, THRISSUR
ANNEXURE F CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/7/19 IN CMP 3993/19 IN CC 1686/11 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO. 1, THRISSUR.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY//
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's appeal to set aside the bail/batta order should succeed when he cannot provide contemporaneous signatures.
Manish Thaper
State of Kerala
Gokulam Chit and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd
Mary Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
