IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4945 of 2008 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/11/2008 IN CRL.MP 6306/2008 IN CC.1154/2005 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR. .................... REVISION / ACCUSED: -------------------------------- RAM MANOJ., S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, NEELA BHAVANAM, PANAPPETTY MURI, PORUVAZHY (P.O), SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP. RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THANKACHAN, TIJO BHAVANAM, KADAMPANAD NORTH MURI, KADAMPANAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZER. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2008, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. NO. 4947/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos. 4945 & 4947 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2008 ORDER The common petitioner faces indictment in two separate prosecutions – both under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and both initiated by the same complainant/2nd respondent in these petitions. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2005 and at last, these prosecutions under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act appear to reach the finishing line. At this stage, the petitioner filed applications to re-open the defence evidence to enable him to examine the Post Master of the local post office. The learned Magistrate by the identical impugned orders rejected the said prayer holding that the petitioner had not taken any necessary steps earlier. Evidently, the learned Magistrate entertained an impression that the attempt was calculated to delay and protract the proceedings. Crl.M.C. Nos. 4945 & 4947 of 2008 -: 2 :- 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned orders. According to him, examination of the Post Master was absolutely necessary and in having denied such an opportunity to the petitioner, there has been failure of justice. 3. I have considered the submissions. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The prayer is to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. Such jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course. Sufficient, satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify the invocation of such jurisdiction. 4. The law frowns upon challenge against the interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings. This policy of law is clearly reflected in Sec.397(2) Cr.P.C. which proscribes challenge against interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings. Such challenge will have to wait until the case is disposed of by the court and if necessary, such challenge can be raised in the appeals preferred. I am, in these circumstances, not satisfied at all that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction deserves to be invoked. 5. In the result, these Crl.M.Cs. are dismissed; but with the specific observation that the dismissal of these petitions will not Crl.M.C. Nos. 4945 & 4947 of 2008 -: 3 :- in any way fetter the right of the petitioner/accused to challenge the impugned orders, if necessary, in appeals to be preferred against the judgments to be rendered in the prosecutions. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge