IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3231 of 2007 (F) ------------------------------- ST.1046/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------ N.P.R. FINANCE LTD., 41/1787, CHITTOOR ROAD, COCHIN-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, E.NARAYANAN, S/O. EASWARAN, AGED 33 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SHIJIMON P., SREESADANAM HOUSE, THAIKATTUSSERY P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA NAIR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. --------------------------------------------------------------- Crl. M. C. No.3231 of 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 ORDER There is no representation for the petitioner. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C seeking quashment of Annexure-IV order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kochi in an application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr. P. C for recalling PW1 for the purpose of adducing further evidence. The learned Magistrate has dismissed the application mainly on the reason that the application was filed in a very casual manner without giving specific reason as to why the recalling of the witness has become necessary. The learned Magistrate has also observed that offence under Section 138 is technical in nature and the provision of Crl. M. C. No.3231 of 2007 -2- Section 311 cannot be invoked for filling up the lacuna in evidence. Though such an observation is there it appears to me that the learned Magistrate became inclined to dismiss the application mainly because of the casual manner in which the application was filed. The casualness of the approach of the complainant is evident today also since as already stated there is no representation for the petitioner. However, I feel that relief can be given to the petitioner to a certain extent by permitting him to file a fresh petition giving cogent reason justifying invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 311 however, only on conditions. Petitioner will have the liberty of filing a proper application under Section 311 seeking the reliefs which were sought for by him in M.P. No.1014/07 provided such an application is filed by him within three weeks from Crl. M. C. No.3231 of 2007 -3- today and provided further that he pays a sum of Rs.1,500/- as cost to the High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks and produces receipt before the court below. If fresh application is not filed on time as ordered above and if the amount is not paid to the High Court Legal Services Committee on time, the petitioner will not have the permission granted as above. The Crl. M.C is disposed of accordingly. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE kns/-