Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHANDRAN, PANIKKATHU VEEDU versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


CHANDRAN, PANIKKATHU VEEDU v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl MC No. 972 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 6268 (27 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 972 of 2007()

1. CHANDRAN, PANIKKATHU VEEDU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. K.V.PURUSHOTHAMAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :27/03/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 972 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 27th day of March, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused, it would appear, has taken up a defence that the signature in the cheque in question is not his. The accused had filed an application earlier to send the disputed cheque to the expert. The learned Magistrate, by Annex. A1 order dt.1.10.2005, had allowed the said request with the following specific observation:

"Hence I am of the view that to avoid such an apprehension the accused/petitioner has to produce admitted documents of the year 2002 for comparison with the signature available in Ext.P1 cheque.

2. Long later, another application appears to have been filed for identical purpose. The learned Magistrate, by Anex.A2 order, had allowed the application filed by the petitioner and called upon the Federal Bank, Kodungallur to forward to the court the admitted signatures of the accused. The learned Magistrate proceeded to observe as follows: "I am satisfied that the documents mentioned in

the petition are sufficient to send for expert's opinion." Crl.M.C.No. 972 of 2007 2

3. There was a request on the side of the petitioner/complainant that the original passport of the accused may be sent to the expert for comparison. The learned Magistrate was of the opinion that if the original passport is called for, that may cause much hardship to the accused. Hence the petition was allowed and direction was issued to issue summons to the Bank to produce the documents referred to in the petition.

4. That petition has been read over to me. It shows that the accused had requested that the bank be directed to produce the specimen signature (original) and the original of the cheques issued by the petitioner for operation of the said account etc.

4. The short apprehension of the petitioner/complainant is that the learned Magistrate may not insist on production of standard signature of the year 2002. The petitioner has a case that the specimen signature card is not acceptable and that the specimen signature had been changed subsequent to 2002. The short contention of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate must insist that whatever admitted documents come from the Bank must relate to 2002 and earlier period.

5. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate, in the light of Annex.A1 order, will not insist on undisputed documents of 2002 or Crl.M.C.No. 972 of 2007 3 earlier years to facilitate comparison with the disputed signature in the cheque in question. The learned Magistrate, in the light of Annex.A1 order, must certainly insist on such undisputed documents of 2002 or earlier years. I find no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate, in view of Annexs.A1 and A2, will not insist on production of such admitted documents of 2002 and earlier years. The learned Magistrate must do the same.

6. In the nature of the contentions raised in this petition and the nature of the order that I propose to pass, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondent.

7. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly allowed in part. It is observed that consistent with Annex.A1 order, the learned Magistrate must insist on forwarding of undisputed documents of the year 2002 and earlier years when the cheque is sent to the expert for comparison.

8. Hand over copy of the order to the learned counsel for the petitioner for production before the learned Magistrate. (R. BASANT) tm Judge Crl.M.C.No. 972 of 2007 4 tm


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.