IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 301 of 2010()
1. MADHUSOODANA MENON, AGED 53,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.MADHAVI AMMA,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent :SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :21/05/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------
Crl. R.P.No.301 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010.
O R D E R
This revision petition is preferred by the accused in
C.C.No.2579/2008 pending before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, challenging the order dated
12.01.2010 in C.M.P.No.12722/09, by which the learned
Magistrate declined the request of the revision petitioner
u/s.311 of Cr.P.C. and to produce certain documents.
2. From the order impugned it can be seen that, the
above case is instituted upon a private complaint preferred by
the respondent herein, in which the allegation is that the
revision petitioner/accused has committed the offence
punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein the
cheque in question covers an amount of Rs.16 lakhs. From the
impugned order it is further clear that the complainant, who was
examined as PW1, was not cross examined by the counsel for
the accused and the court has recorded, ‘no cross’ and after
closing the evidence, the case proceeded to the next stage of
Crl. R.P.No.301 of 2010
2
examining the accused u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. and before posting
the case for final hearing, though the revision petitioner was
granted time to adduce defence evidence, he did not avail that
opportunity. But the revision petitioner filed a petition on
5.10.2009 u/s.311 of Cr.P.C. to recall PW1, which was allowed
and accordingly PW1 was recalled and cross examined and
thereafter the present petition, upon which the impugned order
passed, was filed. On going by the impugned order, it appears
that the reasoning given by the learned Magistrate is absolutely
correct, especially in the light of the legal position, expressed
therein.
3. It is true that though the revision petitioner has got
ample opportunity to adduce defence evidence, he failed to
avail such opportunity and he had also failed to adduce
evidence or bring the materials, which claimed to have available
in favour of him, to the notice of the court, when PW1 was
recalled on the basis of the petition filed by the revision
petitioner on 5.10.2009. However, it is pertinent to note that the
Crl. R.P.No.301 of 2010
3
allegation in the complaint is that, the revision
petitioner/accused had issued a cheque for Rs.16 lakhs, which
dishonoured when presented for encashment and in case, the
allegation is found against the accused/revision petitioner, the
consequential liability will be very serious in both the respect, of
financial as well as of the criminal liability. Therefore, to serve
interest of justice, I am of the view that even though there was
some latches on the part of the revision petitioner, an
opportunity can be given to him to reopen the evidence, as
prayed for. The learned counsel for the
respondent/complainant though stoutly opposed the revision
petition, he submitted that if this court is inclined to give an
opportunity to the revision petitioner, certain condition may be
imposed thereby to expedite the trial of the case. Having
regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am
of the view that this revision petition can be disposed of
allowing the petitioner/accused, one more opportunity to
produce documents, within a limited time frame.
Crl. R.P.No.301 of 2010
4
In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting
aside the order dated 12.1.2010 in C.M.P.No.12722/09 in
C.C.No.2579/08 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Irinjalakuda, and allowing C.M.P.No.12722/09 for the limited
purpose of producing the documents, as mentioned in the
petition, namely, C.M.P.No.12722/09. The revision petitioner is
directed to take steps to produce the documents within one
month from today and the trial court is directed to post
C.C.No.2579/08 on 21.6.2010, on which date the parties are
directed to appear before the court and the learned Magistrate
is directed to allow the said petition and accordingly the revision
petitioner is directed to produce his documents, within one
month thereafter and the trial court is further directed to
expedite the trial accordingly and dispose the same on merit.
Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
V.K.MOHANAN,
Judge.
ami/