IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 703 of 2008() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2007 IN CRMP.7879/2007 IN CC.134/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- PROF.C.JOSEPH, EDWARD, CHERUKADU VEEDU, EDATHUA P.O., KUTTANADU. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ----------------------------------- 1. K.C.VARGHESE, KALAPPURACKAL VEEDU, KODUMON KIZHAKKU KODUMON VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.703 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Notice of demand did not evoke any response. The petitioner is a Lecturer in the St. Aloysious College, Edathua. The case under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act was initiated as early as in 2003. The prosecution evidence was closed and it was posted for 313 examination on 31/8/05. The petitioner did not adduce any defence evidence. An application under Sec.311 Cr.P.C. to examine the defence witnesses was filed first on 21/11/05. That petition was allowed. But witnesses were not examined. Later, a second application was filed again under Sec.311 for permission to examine the witnesses. That was also allowed; but the witnesses were not examined. It is, in these circumstances, that on 3/12/07 the Crl.M.C. No.703 of 2008 -: 2 :- present application was filed to reopen the defence evidence and permit the petitioner to examine the same witnesses. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate rejected the application. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were justifiable reasons for not filing the petition earlier and that the present application is absolutely justified. The learned Magistrate erred grossly in rejecting the third application filed under Sec.311 Cr.P.C. to permit the petitioner to examine the witnesses. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant opposes the application vehemently. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that the transparent intention of the petitioner is to further protract the proceedings which have commenced as early as in 2003. In any view of the matter, the impugned order, being an interlocutory order, does not warrant interference by invocation of the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. Ample opportunities have already been granted and it may not be lost sight of that the complainant's evidence was closed and the matter was posted for 313 examination to 31/8/05. No further indulgence may be shown. If the petitioner wants to challenge the impugned order, he may be directed to challenge the same, if necessary, along with the final orders to be passed in C.C.No.134/03. In any view of the Crl.M.C. No.703 of 2008 -: 3 :- matter, there is no justification in the prayer for invocation of the jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C, submits the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I take note of the fact that the signature in the cheque is admitted. I take note of the fact that the notice of demand, though received, had not evoked any response. I take note of the further fact that the petitioner is expected to be a responsible person – a Lecturer in a College. I take note of the further fact that two opportunities had already been given to reopen the evidence at the defence stage. 5. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the contentions of the petitioner. Sufficient it to say that the petitioner, if he wants to challenge the impugned order, must certainly be directed to wait till the case is disposed of. Along with the final orders if necessary, he can challenge the impugned order also. The impugned order, by any stretch of imagination, can only be held to be an interlocutory order. The law frowns upon attempts to challenge interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings. This policy of law is reflected clearly in Sec.397(2) Cr.P.C. which proscribes challenges against interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings. I am not persuaded to agree that Crl.M.C. No.703 of 2008 -: 4 :- the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all contentions to justify his claim for acquittal before the trial court and also to raise all contentions including the contentions against the impugned order, if found necessary, before the appellate and the revisional courts. 7. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that there may be a direction for expeditious disposal of the proceedings which has been pending from 2003. I need only observe that the learned Magistrate must dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible – at any rate, within a period of 60 days from the date on which a copy of this order is placed before the learned Magistrate. 8. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ `//true copy// P.S. to Judge