Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the common order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalappuzha on C.M.P No.81/2012 and C.M.P No.82/2012 in C.C No.536/2008, the petitioner/accused has come up before this Court.
2. The petitioner is an accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the N.I Act'). It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent/complainant conducted chits. Petitioner's husband subscribed four chitties conducted by the 2nd respondent. It is her case that without her full knowledge, her husband had obtained signatures on some blank papers. It is also alleged that those blank papers were used to create chitty agreements, four in number to support the contention of the complainant.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice, there was no representation for the 2nd respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disputed agreements, which have been marked as Ext.P8 to P11 by the trial court, were produced only after closure of the prosecution evidence and after examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. When the matter was posted for hearing, a petition was filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C requesting to reopen the case and mark the documents.
5. PW1 was recalled and re-examined and he was subjected to cross examination. But the grievance of the petitioner is that the request made by her to sent Exts.P8 to P11 to an expert to determine the age of the writings and the signatures, so as to establish that the writings were made on them subsequent to putting the signatures, was denied by the court below finding that it was a belated application. It is to be borne in mind that the order passed by the learned Magistrate states only that the application was belated. It is also contended by the learned counsel that observation of the learned Magistrate that determination relating to the age of signatures or the printed matters in Exts.P8 to P11 has no relevancy is also incorrect. If the petitioner is able to establish that she was made to sign on blank papers and later a document was prepared on the signed papers, I am of the view that the genuineness of the document cannot stand a scrutiny of law. Therefore, it has some relevancy in this case. Hence, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate was not justified in declining the request to send the disputed documents for the scrutiny of an expert. It is made clear that the petitioner shall bear the costs likely to be incurred for sending the documents for expert opinion.
In the result, the petition is allowed. Learned Magistrate shall take urgent steps to send Exts.P8 to P11 to an expert in the Forensic Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, as requested in the petition, for determining the age of the writing and the signatures on them.
The party shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 29th December, 2014.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
//True copy// amk P.A to Judge