IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3456 of 2007() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/08/2007 IN CMP.1424/07 IN CC.201/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------- M/S.MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 'SADHANA'(H),2ND FLOOR 570,PB.MARG,BEHIND MAHINDRA TOWERS,WORLI,MUMBAI, DULY REP.BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,MR.TONY GEORGE,29 YEARS, BRANCH IN CHARGE, M/S MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,KASARAGOD BRANCH. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. RESPONDENTS: REVN. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GOPALAKRISHNAN M., (47 YEARS), FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE REVISION PETITIONER, KIZHAKKEPURA HOUSE, AMBEDKAR ROAD, NEAR CANARA BANK, KALEKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P. NO. 3456/2007 : 2 : ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO. 10132/2007 IN CRL.R.P. NO. 3456/2007 DISMISSED 25.03.2008 SD/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. /True Copy/ P.A to Judge. V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 3456 of 2007 ========================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who is the complainant in C.C. No. 201 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kasaragod which was a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, challenges the order dated 09.08.2007 in C.M.P.No. 1424 of 2007 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed the said petition for recalling PW1 for the purpose of marking the loan agreement in evidence. But, according to him, on account of an inadvertent mistake, instead of PW1 the witness requested to be recalled was PW2 and noticing the mistake he claims to have immediately filed Annexure I petition for correction. It was without noticing Annexure I petition that the learned Magistrate dismissed the application. Even though the 1st respondent/accused has not chosen to enter appearance, I am not inclined to give the petitioner an opportunity for further evidence unless he pays cost to the accused. Accordingly, the impugned order will stand set CRL.R.P. NO. 3456/2007 : 2: aside and this revision will stand allowed in case the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) by way of costs before the court below for payment to the accused within two weeks from today. If he commits default in making the payment, this revision will stand dismissed. This Crl.R.P is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 3456/2007 : 3: