IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4940 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/12/2008 IN CRMP 4857/2008 IN CC.247/2002 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SULTHANBATHERY. .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- T.M. BINOY, ADVOCATE, SANTHANILAYAM, KARIMBUMMALE, PANAMARAM.P.O., KAMBALAKKADU, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. K. YOOSAF, S/O. UNNEENKUTTY, KALLUNGAL VEEDU, CHELLAMCODE, VADUVANCHAL, VYTHIRI TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4940 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is an accused in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant wanted a witness to be recalled and for that purpose, filed an application under Sec.311 Cr.P.C. By the impugned order, the said request was allowed on terms. The complainant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.200/- as costs to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by that order. 2. According to the petitioner, the prayer is not justified. The complainant had ample opportunity earlier to examine that witness. The witness was not examined. The present prayer is without any merit or substance. 3. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction that I am called upon to invoke and Crl.M.C. No. 4940 of 2008 -: 2 :- exercise. The jurisdiction which is sought to be invoked is the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. I shall not delve deeper into the matter. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that the impugned order permitting examination of a witness on the side of the complainant on terms does suffer from any vice which justifies or warrants invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 4. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 4940 of 2008 -: 3 :-