IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2989 of 2011(E) ------------------------- CRL.M.P.NO:482/2011 IN ST NO:11/2006 OF JFCM-III KOCHI PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- USHA DEVI, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.R.VIKRAMAN, 22/1491 A, PUTHUSSERIL HOUSE, COCHIN- 682 006, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE OF KERALA -------------------------------------------- 1. T.R.SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.THEETHAR RAWTHAR, PROPRIETOR, M/S.RAGADH ENTERPRISES, KURISUPALLY ROAD, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT RAZEEN VILLAGE, IRIMPANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN 682030. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 2989 of 2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONERS ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A1: A TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION DATED 19.11.2010, ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE-A1. ANNEXURE-A2: A TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION DATED 4.1.2011 ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNE.A2. ANNEXURE-A3: A TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 23.4.2011. ANNEXURE-A4: A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS. ANNEXURE-A5: A TRUE COPY OF PETITION CMP NO.482/2011 ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNE.A5. ANNEXURE-A6: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.8.2011. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE JJJ N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl. M.C. No: 2989 OF 2011 (E) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011 O R D E R The accused, in a case filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, filed an application before the Court below, at the defence stage, to summons certain account particulars from UCO Bank, Ernakulam. That petition was allowed and the accounts were produced by the Bank. According to the accused he realised the mistake regarding the account number shown in the earlier application. Instead of 6795 the account number was shown as 6698. So the petitioner again filed an application to reopen the evidence, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to get the particulars of account number 6795 from the very same Bank. That petition was opposed by the complainant stating that the application filed by the accused was earlier allowed and so after closing the evidence such petition should not be allowed. Hence the learned Magistrate rejected the petition. Crl. M.C. No: 2989 OF 2011 (E) -2- 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was only due to a bona fide mistake that the account number was incorrectly shown . The accused will gain nothing by furnishing a wrong account number. When the mistake was realised a proper application was filed. The accused should not be denied opportunity to adduce defence evidence. The learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petition stating that the case would be further delayed. 3. Considering all the aspects, this petition is allowed, but on the payment of cost of `.5,000/- to the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount will be paid. Both parties will appear before the learned Magistrate on 15.12.2011. The petitioner Crl. M.C. No: 2989 OF 2011 (E) -3- will pay the cost to the complainant on that day. The learned Magistrate will issue summons to the Bank as requested by the accused. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE jjj