IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH APRIL 2009 / 8TH VAISAKHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1402 of 2009() ------------------------------ CC.722/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------- SASIKUMAR C.P., S/O.PERUMAL PILLAI, CHARADUKUNNEL HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA-1. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED: --------------- 1.DR.DOMINIC THOMAS, NELLUVELIL HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA-1. 2.STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.1402 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of April, 2009 O R D E R The revision is filed challenging the order passed by the Magistrate declining permission to the complainant/the revision petitioner to summon and examine additional witnesses in the case, wherein, the 1st respondent is prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, the 'N.I.Act'. The order passed by the learned Magistrate would show that after questioning of the accused, and while the examination in chief of the accused, who got himself examined as a defence witness, was completed and his cross examination remained, the complainant had moved an application for deferring the cross examination on the ground that he wanted to summon and examine two more witnesses to substantiate his case. The learned Magistrate refused to grant permission and dismissed the application moved by the complainant for the purpose. CRL.R.P.1402/09 2 The legality and correctness of that order is challenged in this revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Irrespective of the question of entitlement of the petitioner for the reliefs claimed before the Magistrate, the counsel was requested to enlighten how the order passed by the learned Magistrate is open to challenge by way of revision. The impugned order of the Magistrate is final so far as the petitioner is concerned, since he is denied permission to examine additional witnesses to substantiate his case. I am not impressed by the above submission of the counsel. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is purely an interlocutory order, from which no revision will lie. So, without going into the merits of the case, the revision is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. However, I make it clear that the dismissal of the petition will not stand in the way of the complainant from moving an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. setting forth grounds for its entertainability, but only after closing of the defence evidence, CRL.R.P.1402/09 3 and, if any such application is moved, the learned Magistrate shall consider its entertainability and dispose that application on its merits, untrammelled by any of the observations made in the impugned order. With the above observations, the petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009