IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 690 of 2008() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN MP.30/2008 IN ST.768/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT ----------------------- HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES (P) LTD, DOOR NO.28/60 A3, SECOND FLOOR, G-107, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN - 682 036, REP. BY ITS FINANCE EXECUTIVE MR.ASHOK KUMAR.A. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON RESPONDENTS: (ACCUSED & STATE) ------------------------------ 1. M/S.FAMOUS MARKETING, THUSHARA COLONY ROAD, EROOR SOUTH, THRIPUNITHURA, COCHIN REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. 2. SUNIL B.MENON, MAYOORAM, COLONY ROAD, EROOR SOUTH, THRIPUNITHURA, COCHIN PARTNER, M/S.FAMOUS MARKETING, THUSHARA COLONY ROAD, EROOR SOUTH, THRIPUNITHURA, COCHIN. 3. JAYAKUMAR, MANAYIL, IRUMPANAM, COCHIN, PARTNER, M/S.FAMOUS MARKETING, THUSHARA COLONY ROAD, EROOR SOUTH, THRIPUNITHURA, COCHIN. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT FOR R2 & R3 SRI.K.N.ABILASH FOR R2 & R3 SMT.LELA.R. FOR R2 & R3 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.690 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- The evidence of the complainant was adduced. The matter has now reached at the defence stage. The accused had filed an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C and his examination was permitted. It is, at this stage, that the complainant came with an application to examine some additional witnesses. The application was stoutly opposed by the accused. The learned Magistrate, in these circumstances, passed the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the complainant for permission to adduce further evidence. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even assuming that there was some delay on the part of the petitioner to file such application, a lenient view should have been taken subject to appropriate terms and conditions. Crl.M.C.No.690/08 2 3. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the complainant can be given the luxury of a further opportunity to adduce further evidence only on condition that he adequately compensates the accused. 4. I am satisfied, considering the totality of circumstances, that a further opportunity can be granted to the complainant to adduce further evidence. The complainant shall be permitted to adduce such further evidence first and then only further defence evidence need be adduced. 5. In the result, a) This petition is allowed. b) Impugned order is set aside. c) The complainant shall be permitted to reopen the evidence and examine the additional witnesses cited on condition that the complainant pays cost of Rs.2,500/- to accused 2 and 3 within a period of ten days from this date. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.690/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.690/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007