IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3312 of 2008() ----------------------------------- ORDER IN CRL.MP. 985/08 IN ST. NO.1448/05 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III, KOCHI. ..... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- N.P.R.FINANCE LTD., 41/1787, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI - 28, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, E.NARAYANAN, S/O.EASWARAN, AGED 33, 41/1787, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI - 18. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PIOUS GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, POKKATH HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P.O., CHOONDY, ALUVA. ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) FOR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRO.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2008, ALONG WITH CRMC. NO.3313 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos. 3312 & 3313 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the complainant in two prosecutions both under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance has been taken. The 2nd respondent in these two petitions are accused persons. The evidence in chief and cross examination of the complainant is already over. In the course of cross examination, there has been challenge on the aspect as to whether the cheques were issued for the due discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. The complainant was asked about his competence to produce accounts to show existence of liability. The signatures in the cheques are admitted. There is a dispute as to whether the cheques were issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. 2. In one case 313 examination of the accused is already over, it is submitted. In the other, 313 examination has not been completed, submits counsel. At this stage the petitioner complainant filed applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C to re- open the evidence and permit the complainant to re-call the witness and examine him. There was also a prayer that an Crl.M.C. Nos. 3312 & 3313 OF 2008 -:2:- opportunity may be given to produce certain documents. The said requests were rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that they were belated and that the copies produced are not duly attested or certified. 3. It is not necessary for me to embark on a decision on the admissibility of the documents produced. Appropriate decision will have to be taken by the learned Magistrate. But, however, I find that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the request of the petitioner is absolutely justifyied. I shall assume that there has been contumacious responsibility on the part of the complainant to produce relevant evidence earlier. But in a case where signature in the cheque is admitted, the evidence which is proposed to be adduced will certainly help the accused also in rebutting the percepions which are available against him under the Negotiable Instruments Act. I am satisfied that the interests of justice will be served ideally by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quashing the impugned order and directing the learned Magistrate to permit the complainant to recall his witness and adduce further evidence. On the admissibility and acceptability of Crl.M.C. Nos. 3312 & 3313 OF 2008 -:3:- the evidence which is so proposed to be adduced, the learned Magistrate will have to take appropriate decision. 4. These Crl.MCs are accordingly allowed. Issue a copy of the order to the learned counsel for the petitioner for immediate production before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate must ensure that the cases which have been pending from 2005 are disposed of as expeditiously as possible. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. Nos. 3312 & 3313 OF 2008 -:4:- Crl.M.C. Nos. 3312 & 3313 OF 2008 -:5:-