IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 973 of 2006() ------------------------ CC.136/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TALIPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT ----------------------- K.BALAKRISHNAN MASTER, S/O. CHINDAN, BEENALAYAM, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PROMY KAPRAKKATT SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS: STATE/ACCUSED -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. N.PADMANABHAN., S/O. LATE KAKKUTTU KORAN, CHERUVACHERI, KADANNAPPALLY, POST MANDOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.973 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the complaint, there was only one accused that is the second respondent herein. The second respondent in the course of cross-examination of the complainant took the stand that the cheque was not issued by him and that it was not drawn on an account maintained by him. This stand taken by the accused persuaded the petitioner/complainant to make enquiries. It was revealed to him that the cheque was drawn on an account maintained by one Bhaskaran. At the request of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 420 Cr.P.C against the second respondent/accused. The petitioner was further examined. In such further examination, the petitioner made an assertion on oath that the second respondent had indulged in the culpable overt act of cheating him in furtherance of a common intention that he shared with the said Bhaskaran, the account holder. At that stage an application was Crl.M.C.No.973/006 2 filed to implead the said Bhaskaran as the second accused in the case alleging that he has shared culpable common intention with the second respondent herein, that is the first accused. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, rejected the said prayer. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the rejection of the said prayer. 2. I have gone through the materials which are available on the basis of which impleadment of the said Bhaskaran under Section 319 Cr.P.C is claimed. Reliance is placed on the further examination in chief of the petitioner as PW1. Having gone through the same I find absolutely no semblance of any material which can persuade the court to invoke the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate is absolutely justified in taking the view that no impleadment under Section 319 Cr.P.C of the said Bhaskaran can be directed on the materials presently available. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.973/006 3 Crl.M.C.No.973/006 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007