IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 784 of 2008() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/01/2008 IN CMP 119/2008. IN CC.202/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE),ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ BIJU JACOB, S/O. K.J.JACOB, MERRY LAND, C.M.C.3, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. MATHEW C.MATHEW & SONS, NEAR CULLEN BRIDGE, FACTORY WARD, ALAPPUZHA (REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MATHEW C.MATHEW). 2. MATHEW C.MATHEW, MANAGING PARTNER, MATHEW C.MATHEW & SONS, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.GIKKU JACOB R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 784 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial is in progress. The matter has reached the stage of examining the defence witnesses. The accused filed defence list and wanted to examine five witnesses. The petitioner herein raised objections against the request for examination of the first of those five witnesses. That witness is the brother of the petitioner herein. The accused has a case that the cheque was handed over to the said brother and the same is being misused by the complainant to foist a false claim against him. The petitioner objected to the examination of the said witness on the ground that the accused did have monetary transactions with the said brother also. According to the petitioner it was a clever ploy processed into service by the accused to delay and protract the proceedings. The brother of the petitioner is not available in India and the accused is attempting to take advantage of that situation to drag on the proceedings, it was contended. 2. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected the objections and the accused was permitted to examine all Crl.M.C. No. 784 OF 2008 2 witnesses including the brother of the petitioner. Petitioner claims to be aggrieved by that order. 3. The respondent has entered appearance. Learned counsel for the accused submits that examination of the said witness is absolutely necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Having considered all the relevant facts, I find absolutely no justification in the prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate to permit the accused to examine the said witness. In the nature of the stand taken by the accused in the trial, examination of the said witness does appear to be necessary. 5. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 784 OF 2008 3 Crl.M.C. No. 784 OF 2008 4