1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.633 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 N.Srinivasan ... Petitioner Vs. G.Joseph Segayaraj ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 29.06.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.4669 of 2011 in C.C.No.70 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ananda Kumar For Respondent : Mr.V.Kannan ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused. 2.The revision petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 29.06.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.4669 of 2011 in C.C.No.70 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti. 3.It is an admitted fact that the case was taken on file in C.C.No.70 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti on the complaint given by the petitioner/complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After examining the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed and the matter was posted for examining the defense witness. 4.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant, though proper opportunity was given to the respondent/accused, no defense witness was examined on the date fixed for recording the defense evidence and on the date of hearing the respondent/accused failed to produce any witness. However, the court below, by the impugned order, permitted the respondent/accused herein to adduce defence witness, which is according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is causing delay in disposing of the matter. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits that originally the respondent herein wanted to examine two defense witnesses. One is the Manager of a Bank, of the partnership firm, in which, both the parties were partners and another witness is an Auditor of the said firm, run by the petitioner and the respondent. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent/accused is going to examine only the Auditor of the firm. 6.In the aforesaid circumstances, to meet ends of justice, I find it reasonable to dismiss the Criminal Revision Petition with a direction to the court below. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, directing the Court below to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after providing reasonable opportunity to both the parties so as to examine the said Auditor as defense witness. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti. 2.-Do-Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar At Srivilliputhur. +1cc to M/S.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, Advocate, Sr.No.39314 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.633 of 2011 12.11.2011 nbj sma/29.11.2011/4c/2p https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/