IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1295 of 2006() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/04/2006 IN CRMP. 1922 /2006 IN CC.785/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------- 1. M/S.PATTASSERIL CEMENT MARKETING TRIPUNITHURA, REPRESENTED BY SUSAN JIMMY, TRIPUNITHURA, COCHIN. 2. SUSAN JIMMY, AGED 38, W/O.JIMMY ELIAS, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.PATTASSERIL CEMENT MARKETING TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SMT.THANKOM.G RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KRISHNADAS K.MENON, S/O.M.R.KRISHNA MENON, 24/144, PRATHEEKSHA, DEVI NAGAR, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR-2. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 1295 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioners are accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. They applied that the cheque be sent to the expert. That application was dismissed as per order dt. 21.4.2006 in M.P.1922 of 2006. Aggrieved by that rejection/dismissal the petitioners have come before this Court with this Crl.M.C. 2. It is now submitted that during the pendency of this Crl.M.C. that prosecution has now culminated and the petitioners have been found guilty, convicted and sentenced. They have filed appeal before the Sessions Court as Crl.A.384 of 2006. The learned counsel for the petitioners accepts that this Crl.M.C. has now become unnecessary and redundant. The counsel submits that the challenge raised in this Crl.M.C. has been raised by the petitioners in the appeal preferred by them. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Crl.M.C. may now be dismissed making it clear that the petitioners can mount their Crl.M.C.No. 1295 of 2006 2 challenge against the impugned order in the appeal that was preferred against the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence. Needless to say, the petitioners can do the same. The learned Appellate Judge will have to consider the said challenge on merits and take appropriate decision. 3. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed as unnecessary and redundant. (R. BASANT) Judge tm