IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 3339 of 2007()
1. P.P.BABY,PARANAL HOUSE,PERUMBALLI P.O,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. B.SUDHAKARA MENON,SOUPARNIKA,THURAVOOR
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJI MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :14/09/2007
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Crl. R.P. No. 3339 OF 2007
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2007
O R D E R
Petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.338/07
before the JFCM-I, Cherthala for a prosecution under section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, involving a
cheque for Rs.92,000/-, challenges the order dated 16.8.07
passed by the Magistrate in CMP No.3919/07 as per which
the complainant has been permitted to supply an omission
regarding the actual borrowal of the loan amount in the proof
affidavit which facts had been specifically pleaded in the
complaint filed by him.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
would assail the order submitting that the court below has
allowed the complainant to fill the lacuna in the evidence
adduced by the complainant and as a result of that serious
prejudice has been suffered by the accused.
3. I cannot agree with the above submission. If the
complaint also was deficient of an averment that the amount
Crl.R.P.No.3339/07
: 2 :
was borrowed by the accused, there would have been some
substance in the objection to the correction sought in the
proof affidavit. But there is no dispute that the complaint does
contain an averment to that effect. It was clearly an
inadvertent omission which was supplied by the above
correction petition. I see no ground to interfere with the order
of the Magistrate. It goes without saying that the petitioner, if
so advised, can have further cross examination of PW1
consequent to the correction allowed in the proof affidavit.
This revision is accordingly dismissed.
(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks