CHANDRAN PANIKKATHU VEEDU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused, it would appear, has taken up a defence that the signature in the cheque in question is not his. The accused had filed an application earlier to send the disputed cheque to the expert. The learned Magistrate, by Annex. A1 order dt.1.10.2005, had allowed the said request with the following specific observation: "Hence I am of the view that to avoid such an apprehension the accused/petitioner has to produce admitted documents of the year 2002 for comparison with the signature available in Ext.P1 cheque.

(2.) Long later, another application appears to have been filed for identical purpose. The learned Magistrate, by Anex.A2 order, had allowed the application filed by the petitioner and called upon the Federal Bank, Kodungallur to forward to the court the admitted signatures of the accused. The learned Magistrate proceeded to observe as follows: "I am satisfied that the documents mentioned in the petition are sufficient to send for expert's opinion."

(3.) There was a request on the side of the petitioner/complainant that the original passport of the accused may be sent to the expert for comparison. The learned Magistrate was of the opinion that if the original passport is called for, that may cause much hardship to the accused. Hence the petition was allowed and direction was issued to issue summons to the Bank to produce the documents referred to in the petition.