IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3893 of 2006()
1. P.M.PRAMOD, AGED 37 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. N.V.PARAMESWARAN, AGED 36 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :24/11/2006
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.NO.3893 OF 2006
------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2006.
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under
Section 138 of the N.I Act. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the complainant’s evidence is already
closed and the accused who is examining himself under Section
315 CR.P.C is in the witness stand. He has been cross examined
in part and not completed yet. At this stage, counsel submits, an
application was filed by the complainant under Section 311
Cr.P.C producing certain documents requesting that he may be
permitted to examine himself further. That application was
opposed and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the
impugned order, which is produced as Annexure-A, permitted
the production of documents and further examination of the
complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
this procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is incorrect.
Under Section 311 Cr.P.C, witnesses can be summoned, but
documents cannot be produced or received.
Crl.M.C.NO.3893 OF 2006 2
2. I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner. The contention is inherently
unsustainable. It omits to take note of the width, sweep and
amplitude of the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The learned
Magistrate has in the order explained why further evidence has
become necessary. There was a challenge against the capacity
of the complainant to raise the amount to advance the loan to the
accused to discharge which the cheque was allegedly issued. In
the light of that challenge in cross examination, the complainant
wanted further documents to be produced and himself to be
recalled for further examination. In any view of the matter, I am
unable to find any such vice vitiating the impugned order which
would justify this Court invoking the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C to interfere with that order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the accused is remaining part examined in the witness stand and
at this stage, the complainant may not be permitted to recall
himself and produce any further documents. I have no reason to
assume that the learned Magistrate would proceed to further
examine the complainant before cross examination of the
Crl.M.C.NO.3893 OF 2006 3
accused is completed. No directions in that regard also deserve
to be issued.
4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/