ABDUL BASHEER Vs. ABDUL KHADER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent/accused in Crl.M.P. No. 1973/2014 in C.C. No. 217/2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri is the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) The case was charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Manjeri in Crime No. 465/2011 of Manjeri police station, which was registered on the basis of a complaint given by the defacto complainant before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Malappuram, which was forwarded to the concerned Station House Officer through proper channel, against the revision petitioner alleging an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) After investigation, final report was filed and the case was taken on file as C.C. No. 217/2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri. When the revision petitioner appeared, after hearing both sides charge was framed for the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter the case was posted for evidence and summons was issued on CWS 1 to 3. At that time, the complainant came to understand that expert opinion on the handwriting of the revision petitioner was not obtained. So he earlier filed Crl.M.P. No. 998/2014 for sending the document for expert opinion alleging that the case cannot be proved without that evidence. But that petition was dismissed on the ground that the application is not maintainable as the application can be filed only by the Public Prosecutor concerned and also observed that in view of the bar under section 311A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) since he was not in custody during the course of investigation, such a petition cannot be entertained and dismissed the application. Thereafter, the complainant filed Crl.M.P. No. 1973/2014 for further investigation under section 173(8) of the Code for enabling the investigating officer to conduct investigation in respect of the letter said to have been given by the revision petitioner and that application was allowed, which is being challenged by the revision petitioner by filing this petition.