IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4042 of 2011() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/08/2011 IN CMP.81/2011 IN ST.97/2011 ON THE FILE OF JFCM COURT-VIII, TRIVANDRUM. .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- VIJAYAN @ WILSON,S/O.STEPHEN,PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU,NEAR CSI CHURCH,PARUTHIKUZHI, MANACAUD.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER SMT.M.JAYASREE RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. USHA.P,TC.68/228,KODIYILVEEDU,EDAYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE R2 BY P.P.SMT.JASMINE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(CRL.M.C.4042/2011) PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A: COPY OF PETITION DT. 11.7.11 ON THE FILE OF JFMC-VIII, TRIVANDRUM. ANNEXURE B: COPY OF AN ADVANCE PETITION ALONG WITH A PETITION AS CMP NO.81/11 FILED UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C. ON THE FILE OF JFMC-VIII, TRIVANDRUM. ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.81/2011 ON THE FILE OF JFMC-VIII, TRIVANDRUM DT. 22.8.11. ANNEXURE D: COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.R.P.NO.55/11 ON THE FILE OF JFMC-VIII, TRIVANDRUM DT. 28.9.11. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4042 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 Order Annexure C order is under challenge. The accused in a case filed under Section 138 of the N.I.Act was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 7.5.2011. The case was thereafter adjourned to 10.5.2011 for defence evidence. On 10.5.2011, a witness list was furnished by the defence as per which witness No.1 was to be produced and witness No.2 was to be summoned. On the next posting date, i.e. on 17.6.2011, witness No.1 was not present and summons issued to witness No.2 was returned as “not known”. Not only that, the accused was not represented on that day. Hence, the case was adjourned to 11.7.2011. On that day also no witness was present and no steps were taken. Hence, the case was posted for hearing on 26.9.2011. It was thereafter this petition was filed to advance the hearing date and to reopen the case. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that examination of those witnesses were absolutely essential. This submission is resisted by the counsel for the complainant. It is Crl.M.C.4042/2011 2 submitted that by filing a witness list, the accused wanted to get the case adjourned indefinitely without taking steps. 3. The amount covered by the cheque is stated to be Rs.One lakh. The complaint was filed in the year 2007. Hence, the following directions are issued: The petition to reopen the evidence and to summon two witnesses mentioned earlier will stand allowed on condition that the petitioner will deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only) within two weeks from today and the petitioner will pay Rs.1000/- (Rs.One Thousand only) to the complainant as cost within two weeks from today. The accused should undertake that he will produce or get the witnesses summoned on the next posting date itself which may be fixed by the learned Magistrate. The sum of Rs.10,000/- which will be deposited by the accused will be adjusted, if ultimately the complainant succeeds in the case. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.4042/2011 3 Crl.M.C.4042/2011 4