SUMAM DOMINIC Vs. BABY MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, the accused in C.C.No.534/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Erattupetta, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, on a complaint filed by the first respondent, filed C.M.P. No.1900/2007 to send Exhibit P1 cheque to an expert to ascertain its age as well as the age of the signature and the writing therein contending that Exhibit P1 cheque was not issued by the petitioner and though first respondent, as PW1, deposed that petitioner borrowed that amount and issued Exhibit P1 cheque at the house of the first respondent on 9.5.2005, petitioner had not gone there and issued the cheque and during 2000-01, husband of the petitioner had borrowed amount from the first respondent and at that time, without the knowledge of the petitioner, he had given a signed blank cheque of the petitioner to the first respondent and that cheque was made use of to create Exhibit P1 cheuqe and if the cheque is examined by an expert, it would reveal whether the cheque was issued in 2005 as contended by the first respondent or during 2000-01 as claimed by the petitioner and therefore, the cheque is to be sent to an expert.

(2.) Learned Magistrate, by Annexure-II order dated 12.4.2007, dismissed the petition holding that Exhibit P1 cheque is a type written one and hence, it is not possible to compare the difference in its age from the signature and therefore, it is not necessary to send the cheque to the expert and the attempt is only to protract the proceedings. Petitioner filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-II order and to send the cheque to an expert as sought for.

(3.) This petition was admitted and an order of stay of further proceedings was granted, which is continuing from 4.5.2007 onwards.