1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order, dated 08.06.2010 made in Crl.M.P.No.6017 of 2010 in C.C.No.417 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District.

2. It is seen that the aforesaid miscellaneous petition was filed under Sections 293 and 311 of Cr.P.C, seeking an order to send the document for expert opinion. It is an admitted fact that the case was taken on file on the complaint given by the respondent herein under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act r/w Section 200 Cr.P.C.

3. As per the complaint given by the respondent before the court below, the petitioner herein had issued a cheque, dated 07.08.2006 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-drawn on State Bank of Travancore, Thiruvattar Branch, in favour of the respondent for the amount due and payable to him. When the cheque was sent for encashment, the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the bank account and returned to the respondent / complainant on 16.09.2006. On 27.09.2006, the respondent / complainant sent a legal notice to the petitioner / accused demanding the cheque amount. According to the respondent, having received the legal notice, without making any payment, the petitioner sent a reply with false averments, hence, the criminal complaint was filed by the respondent before the court below.

4. From the copy of the criminal miscellaneous petition, it is seen that the petitioner / accused filed the aforesaid petition before the court below, seeking the following relief :

"Hence, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to send the cheque for comparison with the specimen to the hand writing expert in the interest of justice."

5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner / accused had sought an order to send the cheque relating to this case for expert opinion for comparison with the specimen. It is an admitted fact that after the closing of complainant's evidence, the case was posted for questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, subsequently, the petitioner / accused examined herself as D.W.1. As per the certified copy of the deposition, it is made clear that the petitioner has admitted her signature available in the cheque. According to her, there was one saju, son of one Gopala Panicker, working in her house as driver, who was attending her house hold work and he used to commit theft of small amounts, hence, he was sent out from her house. According to the petitioner / accused, she had handed over the signed blank cheque to the said saju for making certain payments, later on , she came to know that one of the said cheques was misused for the purpose of filing this case. In her cross-examination, the petitioner has not denied her signature available in the dishonoured cheque, however, she has stated that the cheque was not filled up by her.

6. According to the petitioner, the respondent / complainant was a stranger to her. On the other hand, the complainant has stated in his evidence that he is a relative and was close to the petitioner / accused for number of years, hence on 01.07.2006, he paid Rs.2 lakhs as hand loan to the petitioner / accused to attend her urgent needs, for which she issued a cheque, dated 07.08.2006. According to him, it was filled up and signed only by her.

7. In the deposition, the petitioner / accused has stated that her husband was working in a hospital, attached to the rubber corporation as Pharmacist and that she has estate of 8 acres of rubber plants, apart from two other acres of land. As per her evidence, it is seen that she was managing the estate with the help of servants and she is not an illiterate person.

8. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the defence raised by the petitioner that she had handed over a signed blank cheque to her servant, who was working as her car driver to make some payment could not be accepted, considering her status and other factors. Learned counsel appear