K.S. Sajumon vs State of Kerala

P. Ubaid, J.—The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 670/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No. IV, Ernakulam. The offence alleged against him is punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Evidence on both sides was recorded in detail by the learned Magistrate during trial. By way of defence evidence the accused examined himself with the permission of the court u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Of course his wife was also examined, but her evidence is negative. Any way, evidence in detail was recorded on both sides. At the fag end of trial, the accused made an application as C.M.P. No. 42/2014 with request to send the disputed cheque for expert examination. His case is that his signature was in fact forged by the complainant.

The learned Magistrate heard both sides in detail, and passed orders on 13.5.2014, dismissing the said application. The said order is under challenge in this revision.

On a perusal of the impugned order, I find that the trial court has recorded all possible evidence on the disputed question regarding execution of cheque. Even PW1 examined on the side of the complainant, could not prove the signature of the accused. Yet another witness examined as PW4 stated during cross examination that he cannot identify the disputed signature as that of the accused. In defence the accused also denied the signature. Thus the impugned order of the trial court indicates the nature of evidence adduced by both the parties, and it appears that this evidence will help the court to take a just decision on the disputed question. There is no explanation why the accused did not make such an application at the proper stage. It appears that he came with the application at the fag end with some other object. Of course if the said object is to get some scientific report regarding signature for some other purpose, that could be resorted or attempted in appropriate proceedings. In the present state of affairs, I do not find the absolute necessity of sending the disputed cheque for expert examination. I find that the application was rightly dismissed by the learned Magistrate.

In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed in limine, without being admitted to files.