Judgment · High Court · 2009

M.C.HARI RANI, J. -----------------------------------------------------CRL.M.C.No.1377 OF 2007-----------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MARCH, 2009O R D E RThis petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant underSection 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to set aside Annexure-IXorder. That order is passed by the J.F.C.M.-II, Kanjirappally on19.3.2007 in C.M.P.No.844/2007 in C.C.No.22/98, whereby thatpetition was allowed in part and the accused was directed to givehis specimen signature in the open court. That petition was filedunder Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act with the prayer tosend the signature and handwriting of the accused forcomparison before the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. The copy of the petition and the objectionfiled by the 1st respondent are produced as Annexures X and XIrespectively. Earlier, the petitioner herein filed an applicationunder Section 311A of Cr.P.C. with the same prayer, copy ofwhich is produced as Annexure-V and it was allowed by the lowercourt as per Annexure VII order dated 4.12.2006. That order hasbeen challenged by the first respondent before this Court. This CRL.M.C.No.1377/07 -2-Court as per order dated 6.2.2007, copy of which is produced asAnnexure VIII, has passed the following order.“3. In as much as the impugned directions areperfectly justifiable by invocation of the powersunder Section 73 of the Evidence Act, I amsatisfied that the impugned order does notwarrant any interference.4.There is a further contention that oneof the documents, sought to be sent asstandard/admitted writing, is not really admittedby the petitioner. The learned Magistrate shallconsider whether there is any admission of suchwriting and shall forward the document to theexpert only after satisfying himself that thesame is admitted/standard writing.”Thereafter, a fresh petition, Annexure X, is filed by thepetitioner/complainant under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein the impugned order Annexure-IX is passed by the learnedMagistrate.2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andfor the first respondent.3.It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner that the order dated 4.12.2006 in C.M.P.No.4965/06 CRL.M.C.No.1377/07 -3-passed by the learned Magistrate, copy of which is produced asAnnexure VII has been confirmed by this Court as per order dated6.2.2007 in W.P.(C)No.33248/06, Annexure-VIII. Accordingly, thepetitioner is satisfied by confirming the order of the learned Magistrate, Annexure VII. It is argued by the learned counsel for the firstrespondent that the letter dated 23.12.1994 referred in the petitionfiled by the petitioner on 6.3.2007 ,Annexure X, cannot be sent to theExpert for comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act.4.After hearing both counsel and considering the dispute inthe present case, I am satisfied that the following direction can begiven to the 1st respondent/accused, to meet the ends of justice.5.The accused/1st respondent is directed to produce thedocuments containing his signature and handwriting during the year1997 and also directed to give the present handwriting and signaturein the open court before the learned Magistrate, to send the samealong with the disputed documents Exhibits P1 and P2 for comparison, before the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram.6.In the result, the impugned order dated 19.3.2007 of thelearned Magistrate in C.M.P.No.844/07 in C.C.No.22/98 is set asideand the following directions are given. CRL.M.C.No.1377/07 -4-7.The first respondent/accused is directed to produce thedocuments containing his signature and handwriting during the year1997 and also directed to give the present handwriting and signaturein the open court before the learned Magistrate, to send the samealong with the disputed documents Exhibits P1 and P2 for comparisonto the Expert. Both parties are directed to appear before the courtbelow on 20.4.2009. 8.It is revealed from the records that C.C.No. 22/98 ispending the file of the J.F.C.M's Court-II, Kanjirappally in respect ofthe complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, preferred by the petitioner herein. Considering the nature of the longpending dispute, the learned Magistrate is directed to send the abovedocuments for comparison, without delay and take earnest attempt toget the Expert's opinion without delay and also to dispose of the caseat the earliest. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly.M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.dsn