IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1980 of 2009() ------------------------- (CRLRP.60/06 AND 61/06 OF COURT OF ADDL.SESSIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUDHA, LAKSHMANA NILAYAM, KOLLIYOOR, THIRUVALLAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUKUMARA PILLAI, SREENILAYAM, KALLAMPALLY, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dkr M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ================== Crl.M.C. No. 1980 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioner is accused in S.T.No.84/2005 and S.T.No.85/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VI, Thiruvananthapuram. First respondent is the complainant. In respect of two dishonoured cheques, two complaints were filed, which were taken cognizance by the Magistrate as S.T.No.84/2005 and S.T.No.85/2005. Evidence was recorded. Dishonoured cheques, dishonoured memos and notices were marked as Exts.P1 to P5. By mistake the dishonoured cheques and connected documents to be produced in S.T.No.84/2005 were produced in S.T.No.85/2005. Similarly, the dishonoured cheques and connected documents which should have been produced in S.T.No.85/2005, were produced in S.T.No.84/2005. This was not taken note of either by the complainant or the Crl.M.C.No.1980/2009 -2- counsel appearing for the parties or the court when evidence was let in. Under the impression that the documents produced in the respective cases relate to those cases, evidence was let in and exhibits were marked. When subsequently it was found out that mistake was committed, Magistrate under Annexure A order dated 13-6-2006 directed that the mistake to be rectified. CMP No.843/2006 and CMP No.842/2006 filed thereafter for permitting to return the documents so that they can be produced in the other case. That petitions were allowed under Annexure A and B orders. Petitioner challenged that order before the Sessions Court in Crl.R.P.Nos.60 and 61 of 2006. Under Annexure C order, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revisions. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging Annexure A and B orders as confirmed in Annexure C order. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. Crl.M.C.No.1980/2009 -3- 3. The argument of the learned Counsel is that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to correct the mistake in a case where petitioner is liable to be sentenced for imprisonment and the learned Sessions Judge did not consider this aspect properly and when evidence was let in with regard to Exts.P1 to P5 marked in the respective cases, the mistakes cannot be rectified after questioning the petitioner on those exhibits under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the order is to be quashed. 4. On hearing the learned Counsel, I do not find any reason to interfere with Annexure A and B orders or Annexure C order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. First respondent has lodged two complaints based on two dishonoured cheques. Mistake committed by the Counsel in producing the cheque relating to one case in the other case was not noted by the complainant when he was examined. Even the defence counsel did not note the same and Crl.M.C.No.1980/2009 -4- evidence was let in as if what is marked in S.T.No.84/2005 as Exts.P1 to P5 relate to that case and exhibits in the other case relate to S.T.No.85/2005, when infact they were not so. The Magistrate was justified in pointing out the mistake. The Magistrate did not correct the mistake. Instead when first respondent filed CMP Nos.842 and 843 of 2006 respectively, they were allowed. The Magistrate has only exercised his discretionary power to correct the mistake bonafide made by the counsel. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with that order. Petitioner is at liberty to seek cross-examination of first respondent if he wants to cross-examine first respondent with regard to the exhibits now replaced. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr