C T KURIAKOSE Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been indicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in CC No.427/2016 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thodupuzha instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent herein. The dishonoured cheque involved in this case is for Rs.5 lakhs. According to the petitioner (accused), the specific case of the defence is that the accused had not given the instant cheque to the first respondent complainant in the year 2013 as alleged in the complaint and that it is the further case of the petitioner (accused) that the said cheque leaf is above 18 years old and the signature in the cheque is also above 18 years old, and that this fact can be proved if the cheque is sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for determining the age of the handwriting and the age of the signature in the said dishonoured cheque. If it is so scientifically established that the age of the cheque and the signature therein are 18 years old, then the specific case put up by the complainant that the cheque was executed and issued in the year 2013, would be crumbled down. Therefore, for this purpose the petitioner (accused) had filed Annexure-A1, CMP No.7425/2017 in this complaint proceedings, praying that the cheque in question shall be subjected to expert and scientific analysis by the Forensic Science Laboratory to determine the age of the handwritings and the signature in the dishonoured cheque. The complainant had filed Annexure-A2 objection stating that the said prayer is not maintainable as the age of the cheque cannot be scientifically determined. The trial court as per the impugned Annexure-A3 order dated 5.8.2017 has rejected the above said request made by the petitioner (accused) holding that since there is no device or technique to ascertain the age in that manner, no purpose will be served by allowing the said application. The impugned Annexure-A3 order dated 5.8.2017, which is under challenge in this Criminal RP reads as follows:-

(2.) Heard Sri.Joby Jacob Pulickekudy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (accused), Sri.Saigi Jacob Paletty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 (State) and Sri. N.Nagaresh, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for Addl. R-3 (Central Forensic Science Laboratory).

(3.) When the case was came up for admission on 15.9.2017, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the view taken by the trial court in the impugned Annexure-A3 order as well as the judgment of this Court in Rajan v. T.K.Madusoodanakurup and Another,2013 2 KreLT 759, has been rendered without taking into account the judgment of the Apex Court in T.Nagappa v. Y.R.Muralidhar, 2008 5 SCC 633 as well as the judgment dated 1.2.2011 of the Madras High Court in the case in A.Devaraj v. Rajammal (Crl.OP No.27211/2010); and further that it has also been observed in the abovementioned judgment of the Madras High Court that facilities for determining the age of signatures and handwritings are available at Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad (Central Directorate of Forensic Science in the office of the Government Examiner of Tests and Documents) etc.