IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 37 of 2011() --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/11/2010 IN CMP 2246/2010 IN CRA.366/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-IV, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ APPELLANT -------------------------------------------------------------- SAFARULLAKHAN, S/O.MASTHAN KUNJU, SAFARULLA BUILDING, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THONIKKADAVU JUNCTION, PUTHUKURICHI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695303. BY ADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.P.R.PRATEESH RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITONERS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY TEH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. 2. RAJU, S/O.BHASKARAN, AMMA VEEDU, KADINAMKULAM, PUTHUKURICHI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695303. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAIBY PAUL R2 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.37 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 07th day of April, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the appellant in Crl.Appeal.No.366 of 2007 arising from conviction and sentence for offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the appeal, petitioner produced certain documents to be received as additional evidence under Sec.391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-IV), Thiruvananthapuram vide Annexure-III, order dated November 22, 2010. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel submitted that the documents are necessary for a just and fair decision of the appeal. Learned counsel for second respondent submitted that the documents are produced after about 13years and that there is no justifiable reason for not producing the documents in the trial court. 2. Having heard learned counsel on both sides I am inclined to think that the proper course is to allow the petitioner to challenge correctness of Annexure-III, order in a revision in case the appeal is decided against him and a revision is filed challenging the appeal. I make it clear that I am not going into Crl.M.C.No.37 of 2011 -: 2 :- the correctness of Annexure-III, order. Petitioner is permitted to challenge correctness of the order in case he files a revision against judgment that learned Additional Sessions Judge may pronounce, in case that decision is against him. Reserving that right of petitioner this criminal miscellaneous case is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-