IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 589 of 2008() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/01/2008 IN MP.166/2008 IN CC.50/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. STAR TOURS AND TRAVELS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., CECILIA CHAMBER, 39/5893 A, ATLANTIS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 015, REP. HEREIN BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR, JEFFCELY FERNANDEZ, AGED 43, S/O. LATE JOSEPH FERNANDEZ. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRAN PUZHANKARA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MR. P.J.RAYMOND, AGED ABOUT 38, S/O. P.P.JOSEPH, 10/1255, PULICKAL HOUSE, MULLAVALAPPU, K.B.JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE ADV. SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.589 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. At the fag end of trial, Annexure-A2 application was filed by the accused calling upon the petitioner to produce certain documents. The petitioner produced the documents available in his possession in furtherance of Annexure-A3 order passed by the learned Magistrate. He could not produce all the documents. He filed Annexure-A4 application for one day's further time to produce the document. That prayer was rejected. Later, the petitioner wanted PW1 to be recalled to formally introduce in evidence the documents which were already produced. That prayer was not allowed by the impugned order. The learned counsel argues that the interests of justice would suffer if the documents which are already before court are not formally introduced into evidence by recalling PW1 and examining him. Reliance was placed by the learned Magistrate on Section 164 of the Evidence Act. But Crl.M.C. No.589 of 2008 2 under Section 64 of the Evidence Act also the court can permit reception of such documents. In the facts and circumstances of this case I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where in the interests of justice powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can and ought to be invoked to set aside Annexure-A9 order and permit the petitioner/complainant to recall PW1 and introduce all documents which have already been produced before court subject to the law relating to the relevancy and accuracy. 2. This Crl.M.C is accordingly allowed. The impugned order Annexure-A9 is set aside. The learned Magistrate shall give the petitioner an opportunity to recall PW1 and introduce in evidence all documents which have by now been produced before court subject to the law of relevancy and admissibility. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-