High Court Kerala High Court

M/S.Tube Associates vs P.D.Rajesh on 21 December, 2006

Kerala High Court
M/S.Tube Associates vs P.D.Rajesh on 21 December, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2309 of 2006()


1. M/S.TUBE ASSOCIATES, A PROPRIETARY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. P.D.RAJESH, S/O.PLAMOOTIL DEVASSY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :21/12/2006

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J.

                      ------------------------------------

                      Crl.M.C.NO.2309 OF 2006

                      ------------------------------------

              Dated this the 21st day of December, 2006.


                                   ORDER

The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under

Section 420 I.P.C. His application under Section 311 Cr.P.C to

re-open the evidence and examine one witness was turned down

by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has come to this Court

with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to complain about

the rejection of his petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

2. Initially the grievance was that an offence under

Section 138 of the N.I Act has been committed. In the course of

the trial, the complainant came to realise that the cheque issued

was really not one of which the accused is an account holder. In

these circumstances, it was prayed and the said request was

accepted by the court, that the charge may be altered to one

under Section 420 I.P.C. The evidence was closed. The matter

was posted for 313 examination. At that stage, the complainant

made a request to examine one more witness, who was not

available after re-opening the evidence. That application was

rejected by the learned Magistrate holding that sufficient

reasons are not there to invoke the powers under Section 311

Cr.P.C.

Crl.M.C.NO.2309 OF 2006 2

3. Counsel have been heard. I shall scrupulously avoid

any detailed reference to disputed facts. Suffice it to say that I

am persuaded that the interests of justice shall be served ideally

by granting the petitioner one further opportunity to adduce

further evidence by examining the one witness referred in the

petition.

4. In the result:

a) This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, allowed.

        b)    The impugned order is set aside;


        c)    It   is   directed   that   the   petitioner   shall   be   granted   an


opportunity to examine the witness, whom he wants to examine.

The learned Magistrate shall post the case specifically to a date

for such examination. Witness shall be examined on that date.

R.BASANT

JUDGE

rtr/