High Court Kerala High Court

Premjith vs State Of Kerala on 5 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
Premjith vs State Of Kerala on 5 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 531 of 2008()


1. PREMJITH, S/O. JAYADHARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. JOHNSON,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :05/02/2008

 O R D E R
                             V. RAMKUMAR , J.

              ==========================

                          CRL.M.C. No.531 of 2008

              ==========================

               Dated this the 5th day of February, 2008.


                                  O R D E R

The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No. 1329 of 1998

on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally

which is a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act in respect of a cheque involving a sum of Rs.1

lakh, challenges Annexure A3 order dated 18.01.2008 passed by

the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally in C.M.P. No.

814/2008 as per which the petitioner wanted that court to accept

an additional witness schedule. Annexure A2 is the additional

witness schedule where the first witness is none other than the

complainant himself, the 2nd witness is one Krishnan, a social

worker, the 3rd witness is the complainant’s former counsel who

had issued the statutory notice, the 4th witness is the Circle

Inspector of Police, Chavara and the 5th witness is none other

than the petitioner/accused. While the court below has given

valid reasons for not examining the third witness, who was the

counsel appearing for the complainant, the court has not given

CRL. M.C. NO. 531/2008 : 2:

any valid reason as to why witness Nos.2,4 and 5 should not be

examined except saying that their examination is not necessary.

The court below shall accordingly re-consider the petitioner’s

request for examining Krishnan, 2nd witness, Circle Inspector of

Police, Chavara, the 4th witness and the accused himself who is

the last witness. In case the request for examining Krishnan and

Circle Inspector of Police, Chavara has been made as a gesture of

vexation, the court can give valid reasons for disallowing the

request. In case the accused has not been examined as witness

and the accused volunteers to examine himself as defence

evidence under Section 315 Cr.P.C the court shall not shut out

his defence.

This Crl. M.C is disposed of as above.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

rv

CRL. M.C. NO. 531/2008 : 3: