MOYINKUTTY Vs. M VIMAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under section 138 of the N.I. Act. Ext.P4 is the cheque in question. The signature in Ext.P4 is not disputed. The short contention of the petitioner is that there admittedly was a transaction between the parties in 1999 and all the four documents - Exts.P1 to P4 - were signed and handed over in 1999. Exts.P1 and P2 bear the dates 1999 even now. But Exts.P3 and P4 now bear the dates in 2004. It is the case of the petitioner that the documents were handed over as blank signed cheques when the parties entered into a transaction.

(2.) At the defence stage the petitioner wanted the documents to be sent to an expert. Exts.P1 and P2 are admittedly written in 1999. The petitioner contended that a perusal of the entries in Exts. P1 to P4 will unmistakably convey to an expert that all the four documents were signed with the same ink, in the same handwriting and on the same date. It is hence that he wanted the documents, Exts.P1 to P4, to be sent to an expert.

(3.) The application was opposed and the learned Magistrate who upheld the objection and rejected the prayer. The learned Magistrate observed that the signature in the cheque was admitted and that it was not possible for the expert to determine the age of the hand writing.