IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2186 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN MP.2110/08 IN MP.1914/08 IN CC.475/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- M/S.SAW MILL OWNERS ASSOCIATION, PERUMBAVOOR, REG.NO.ER 3/66, PERUMBAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS OFFICE SECRETARY M.H.MOIDEEN, MAYYUNNIYIL, CHERUVALLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/ACCUSED ------------------------------- 1. P.P.POLACHAN, S/O.PATHROSE, PULICKAL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2186 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th 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. The trial was conducted. Judgment of acquittal was pronounced. Matter was taken up in appeal. It was remanded for fresh disposal after setting aside the order of acquittal. A contention was raised that the complainant is not duly authorised. The complainant, it is significant, is not any individual; but an association. The petitioner now contends that he is aggrieved by Annexures A4 and A9 orders. Those are orders passed on applications filed by the complainant to carry out an amendment to bring about a correction and also to introduce another document in evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain observations in Annexures A4 and A9 generate the apprehension in the mind of the complainant that the learned Magistrate may not consider the matter afresh and in accordance with law at the final stage. He, in these circumstances, prays that Annexures A4 and A9 orders may be set aside and opportunity Crl.M.C.No.2186/08 2 may be given to the petitioner/complainant to carry out the amendment in the complaint and also to adduce further evidence to prove Annexure A7. 2. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The impugned orders are certainly interlocutory orders which are not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction in view of the bar under Section 392(2) Cr.P.C. When revision is barred, it may not be impossible to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to interfere with such orders in an exceptional case; but ordinarily and normally, such attempts to challenge interlocutory orders pending the proceedings by invocation of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C must be frowned upon. The party must be relegated to the remedy of challenging the said orders along with final orders passed in the proceedings if such challenge be necessary at all. 3. I am not satisfied that there are any circumstances in this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to interfere with Annexures A4 and A9 orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Association is the Crl.M.C.No.2186/08 3 complainant and not the authorised representative, it is immaterial as to whether the specific authorisation is proved or not. 4. I need only mention that I do not find any reason to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to interfere with Annexures A4 and A9 orders. No observation made in the said orders shall guide or weigh with the learned Magistrate while disposing of the complaint afresh in accordance with law. The option of the petitioner to challenge Annexures A4 and A9 orders along with final judgment to be passed in the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shall also remain unfettered. 5. This Crl.M.C is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations. I have only intended to express the view that Annexures A4 and A9 orders do not warrant interference at this stage by invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.2186/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.2186/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007