IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1015 of 2008() ------------------------------ Crl.M.P. No.2166 of 2008 in S.T. No. 2798 of 1996 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Chalakkudy REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ P.N. SREEDEVI, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O. PESSOMBILLY RAMAN NARAYANAN ELAYATH, RESDING AT PESSOMPILLY ILLOM MNURINGORE THEKKEMURY VILLATE, KORATTY BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEPAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. JAYARAJ, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, KARAKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. NO. 1015 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 27-03-2008 ORDER Petitioner who is the accused in S.T. No. 2798 of 1996 on the file of the Judl. First Class Magistrate, Chalakkudy under Sec. 138 of the Nagotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in respect of a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- challenges the order dated 7-3-2008 passed by the Magistrate refusing to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination. 2. Initially the revision petitioner was convicted by the trial court as well as by the lower appellate court and she filed Crl.R.P. No. 913 of 2000 before this Court. Her grievance then was that she was denied an opportunity to examine two defence witnesses. This Court, therefore, as per order dated 2-1-2008 remanded the case to the trial court specifically for the purpose of examining those two witnesses. But thereafter, the petitioner filed C.M.P. 2166 under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination. He had no such request either before the lower appellate court or before this court on the earlier occasion. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the purpose of filing the above petition was only to protract the proceedings further. This is a case of the year 1996. It is high time that the case was over long back. I see no good reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate. This Revision is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.