IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 21901 of 2010(Q) ----------------------------------------- CC.284/2009 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-IV, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- SUDHAKARAN PILLAI, AJAYABHAVAN, NEAR PNM ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL ARUKALIKKAL EAST, EZHAMKULAM, PARAKKODE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR, SRI.KRISHNAN.S.RAJ. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- P.C. BIJUKUMAR, CHANDRAVILASOM, CHENNALAMON, KAMUKUMCHERRY P.O., PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 21901/2010-Q APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN C.C.NO.358/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CHIEF AFFIDAVIT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICTE AND OP TICKET DATED 12/07/2010. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE WITNESS SCHEDULE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C)No. 21901 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 6th day of September,2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the accused in C.C.284/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IV, Punalur taken cognizance for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on a complaint filed by the respondent. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the Magistrate to allow Ext.P4 witness list dated 2.7.2010. The case of the petitioner is that though evidence of two more witness is necessary for the defence, the Magistrate without considering the same posted the case for arguments to 14.7.2010 and therefore the Magistrate is to be directed to receive the witness list and examine the witness. W.P.(C)21901/2010 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent were heard. 3. If the case is posted for arguments without permitting the petitioner to examine the witness, his remedy is to file an application before the learned Magistrate to reopen the evidence and examine the witness. If such an application is filed and it was dismissed, he has to challenge that order. There cannot be a direction to the Magistrate to receive the witness list as sought for. Granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order if any passed by the learned Magistrate to reopen the evidence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006