1. The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.986/2023 pending before the Fast Track Special Court, Chengannur. He is aggrieved by Ext.P4 Order of the learned Special Judge, which directed to send the signature in a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act for comparison by the Forensic Science Laboratory.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P4 Order is seriously flawed, inasmuch as there exists no material to connect the petitioner with the crime in question. It was submitted that certain chats/messages between the petitioner and the victim is sought to be established by producing the print outs, which were allegedly taken from an electronic equipment in the studio of CW7. A certificate under Section 65B was initially issued by CW7. However, the authorship of that certificate was dishonored during the course of the trial. It was in such circumstance that the trial court directed the signature of CW7, as contained in the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, to be compared by the Forensic Science Laboratory. Learned counsel would submit that, neither the mobile phone of the petitioner, nor that of the victim, was recovered, in which circumstance, proof with respect to the print outs cannot be of any avail in proving the prosecution case. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner has no phone of the make, as alleged by the prosecution. In such circumstances, Ext.P4 order sending the certificate for comparison of signature would be a futile exercise, is the submission made.

4. This application was seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court cannot find any legal infirmity with Ext.P4 Order. As already narrated, Ext.P4 Order was necessitated when CW7 dishonored his signature in the certificate under Section 65B. According to the prosecution, the electronic evidence sought to be produced with the aid of the certificate under Section 65B is relevant and crucial for driving home the prosecution case. If that be so, the prosecution should be afforded with all necessary avenues to prove the case beyond the shadow of doubt. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner/accused cannot be aggrieved by Ext.P4 Order, which only directed the comparison of the signature of CW7, as contained in the certificate under Section 65B.

6. The rest of the contentions as to whether the print outs taken at the studio of CW7 would do any good in proving the prosecution case etc., are matters beyond the scope of Ext.P4 order and which are to be considered independently by the trial court. The same is the situation with respect to the contention that in the absence of recovery of mobile phone of the petitioner or the accused, no earthly purpose is going to be served by the evidence sought to be produced by the print outs containing the alleged messages between the petitioner and the accused. At the cost of repetition, this Court says that this is an independent matter for the trial court to decide. Based on such a contention, Ext.P4 order cannot be flawed. In the circumstances, the challenge against Ext.P4 Order cannot be sustained and the same will stand repelled. It is however clarified that the petitioner's objection as regards the sustainability of the certificate under Section 65B, if any, raised during the trial will be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law..

The Original Petition (Criminal) will accordingly stand dismissed.