IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2631 of 2008() ------------------------------ CC.545/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ACCUSED --------------------------------- DEVEEDAS.R., CHEMBOLIL VEEDU, KYTHA NORTH, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHETTIKULANGARA, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.LITHIN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SUJITH MATHEW, T.V.S.BUILDING, PERISSERY, CHENGANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 2631 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who was the accused in C.C. No. 545 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Chengannur, which was a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, seeks to quash the order dated 10.07.2008 dismissing his application to examine one more witness as defence witness namely the 2nd witness in the witness schedule filed by him. 2. The 3rd witness in the witness schedule filed by the defence has already been examined before the court. On an earlier occasion, the trial Magistrate had permitted the petitioner to produce witness Nos. 1 and 2 without summons. However, he did not produce the said witnesses and was content with the examination of the 3rd witness. It was thereafter that the petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 4271 of 2008 under Section 311 Cr.P.C to re-open the evidence and to permit him to examine as DW2 the 2nd witness in the witness schedule filed by him. It was the said prayer which was rejected by the court below as per the impugned order holding inter alia that the petitioner was indulging in protraction. CRL.R.P. NO. 2631/2008 : 2: 3. Since the trial Magistrate had already permitted the petitioner to produce witness Nos. 1 and 2 in his witness schedule, I see no reason why the petitioner should be deprived of an opportunity to examine the said witness. However, for the dilatory tactics resorted to by him, he will have to pay costs to the complainant. Accordingly, if the petitioner deposits before the court below a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) by way of costs payable to the complainant within one week from today, the court below shall permit him to examine the 2nd witness in the witness schedule filed by him. I place on record the submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner that he does not propose to examine another witness for the defence. In view of the above narration of facts, I am not ordering notice on this revision to the 1st respondent/complainant. The impugned order is set aside and the revision is allowed as above. Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 2631/2008 : 3: