IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 301 of 2010() ----------------------------- CC.2579/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MADHUSOODANA MENON, AGED 53, S/O.KARTHYAYANI AMMA, "LAKSHMI NIVAS", POLIYEDATH HOUSE, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE OF KERALA: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.MADHAVI AMMA, PATTARUMADATHIL HOUSE, KARALAM VILLAGE, PULLATHARA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN, SRI.SOJO J.KALLIDUKIL, SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.301 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred by the accused in C.C.No.2579/2008 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, challenging the order dated 12.01.2010 in C.M.P.No.12722/09, by which the learned Magistrate declined the request of the revision petitioner u/s.311 of Cr.P.C. and to produce certain documents. 2. From the order impugned it can be seen that, the above case is instituted upon a private complaint preferred by the respondent herein, in which the allegation is that the revision petitioner/accused has committed the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein the cheque in question covers an amount of Rs.16 lakhs. From the impugned order it is further clear that the complainant, who was examined as PW1, was not cross examined by the counsel for the accused and the court has recorded, 'no cross' and after closing the evidence, the case proceeded to the next stage of Crl. R.P.No.301 of 2010 2 examining the accused u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. and before posting the case for final hearing, though the revision petitioner was granted time to adduce defence evidence, he did not avail that opportunity. But the revision petitioner filed a petition on 5.10.2009 u/s.311 of Cr.P.C. to recall PW1, which was allowed and accordingly PW1 was recalled and cross examined and thereafter the present petition, upon which the impugned order passed, was filed. On going by the impugned order, it appears that the reasoning given by the learned Magistrate is absolutely correct, especially in the light of the legal position, expressed therein. 3. It is true that though the revision petitioner has got ample opportunity to adduce defence evidence, he failed to avail such opportunity and he had also failed to adduce evidence or bring the materials, which claimed to have available in favour of him, to the notice of the court, when PW1 was recalled on the basis of the petition filed by the revision petitioner on 5.10.2009. However, it is pertinent to note that the Crl. R.P.No.301 of 2010 3 allegation in the complaint is that, the revision petitioner/accused had issued a cheque for Rs.16 lakhs, which dishonoured when presented for encashment and in case, the allegation is found against the accused/revision petitioner, the consequential liability will be very serious in both the respect, of financial as well as of the criminal liability. Therefore, to serve interest of justice, I am of the view that even though there was some latches on the part of the revision petitioner, an opportunity can be given to him to reopen the evidence, as prayed for. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant though stoutly opposed the revision petition, he submitted that if this court is inclined to give an opportunity to the revision petitioner, certain condition may be imposed thereby to expedite the trial of the case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that this revision petition can be disposed of allowing the petitioner/accused, one more opportunity to produce documents, within a limited time frame. Crl. R.P.No.301 of 2010 4 In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 12.1.2010 in C.M.P.No.12722/09 in C.C.No.2579/08 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, and allowing C.M.P.No.12722/09 for the limited purpose of producing the documents, as mentioned in the petition, namely, C.M.P.No.12722/09. The revision petitioner is directed to take steps to produce the documents within one month from today and the trial court is directed to post C.C.No.2579/08 on 21.6.2010, on which date the parties are directed to appear before the court and the learned Magistrate is directed to allow the said petition and accordingly the revision petitioner is directed to produce his documents, within one month thereafter and the trial court is further directed to expedite the trial accordingly and dispose the same on merit. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/