IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2007 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 1066 of 2007() ------------------------- ST.407/2006 of THE JFCM COURT-VII, TRIVANDRUM. .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------ PRASENAN.B., S/O.K.K.BHANU, CONTRACTOR, PUSHPAMANGALAM, PLACHERY P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.BIJU SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: STATE AND RESPONDENT --------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, NILAVU, ARAMPUNNA, ELAMPAL P.O., KOLLAM DIST. BY P.P. SRI.GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO. 1066 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2007 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial has reached the stage of defence evidence. The petitioner examined himself as D.W.1. He had cited two witnesses as D.Ws.2 and 3. On the date of their examination, the counsel was not personally present. D.W.2 was examined and the documents were marked. D.W.3, who was cited, was not examined. Later, the petitioner filed an application to recall D.Ws.2 and 3. The learned Magistrate considered the said request in detail. Permission was not granted to recall D.W.2. Permission was granted to recall D.W.3, subject to conditions. 2. The petitioner has now come to this Court complaining about the refusal for permission to recall D.W.2. No other contentions are raised. In para-5 of the order, the CRL.M.C.NO. 1066 OF 2007 -: 2 :- learned Magistrate has adverted in detail to the circumstances which prompted the court not to grant the said request to recall D.W.2 – a Bank Manager, employed at Punalur. The court found that both circumstances to prove which D.W.2 was examined have already been introduced in evidence and there is no need to recall D.W.2, who is working far away at Punalur. 3. Though an opportunity has been given pointedly to explain how the reason given in para-5 is not satisfactory or defective, none has been urged before me. I find the reason given by the court to be convincing. At any rate, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order by invoking the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. 4. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge