V S GEETHA Vs. A ALIYARKUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question arises for decision in these petitions which have come before us on a reference made by a learned Judge of this Court, who has doubted the correctness of Geetha v. Aliyar Kunju, 1993 (2) Ker LT (SN) 29 and Retnakumar v. Registrar High Court, 1993 (2) Ker LT 677 : 1994 CriLJ NOC 262 and opined that they require reconsideration.

(2.) Petitioners are the accused in complaints filed under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. At the stage of defence evidence, they applied that the cheques, which they denied were drawn by them in favour of the respondents - complainants, may be sent to the handwriting expert for his opinion as to their genuineness, which request was turned down by the trial Court for different reasons. The order of the Magistrate on the petition filed by the petitioner in Crl. M. C. No. 1598 of 1994 was challenged in Crl. M. C. No. 906 of 1993 and this Court observed :

(3.) The material facts in Retnakumar v. Registrar, High Court, 1993 (2) Ker LT 677 : 1994 CriLJ NOC 262 and these cases are identical. At the stage of defence, the accused filed an application before the trial Court for forwarding a document to the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert opinion on certain aspects. The Magistrate dismissed the application. The accused challenged his order before this Court. While dismissing his petition it was observed :