Devadas vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Parappanangadi in C.M.P.No.2563/2010 in C.C.No.330/2003 dated 29/09/2010.

The revision petitioner is the accused. The offence alleged against him are punishable under Sections 406, 465, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C.

The prosecution case, in short, is that while the revision petitioner was working as the Secretary of Velimukku Service Co-operative Bank, he cancelled the fixed deposit in the name of the daughter of the defacto complainant and withdrew money by opening an account in her name without the knowledge and consent of the defacto complainant by forging documents.

During the investigation, the revision petitioner surrendered before the court below and he was enlarged on bail with a condition to appear before the investigating officer as and when required. After the investigation, final report was filed. The court below took congnizance of the case as C.C.No.330/2003.

During the pendency of the case, the prosecution filed C.M.P.No. 2563/2010 to take the specimen signature of PW's 2, 3 and the accused to send it for scientific examination. It was allowed as per the impugned order. The said order is under challenge in this Crl.Revision Petition.

I have heard Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.S.Rekha, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

Section 311A of Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to order person to give specimen signature or handwriting if the Magistrate is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting. The case of the prosecution is that the revision petitioner has forged documents and withdrew the fixed deposit amount stood in the name of the daughter of the defacto complainant. To prove forgery, it is necessary to get the specimen signature and handwriting of the revision petitioner as well as PW's 2 and 3 examined by a scientific expert. The prosecution has every right to adduce additional evidence if it is necessary for a just decision. I see no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.

Accordingly, Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.