IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 981 of 2003(C) ------------------------------------------ [AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/03/2003 IN CMP.NO.1709/2003 IN CC.NO.2269/98 OF CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WEIZMANN HOMES LIMITED, REP. BY ITS PRESENT ERNAKULAM BRANCH MANAGER MR.SABIN K. GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, 3RD FLOOR, LAXMI CHAMBERS, PADMA JN. ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. MR.N.M.MADHU, SMT.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. JYOMAN BUILDERS PVT.LTD., NAMBIAR BUILDING, SASTA TEMPLE LANE, SRM ROAD, KOCHI-18, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN P.V. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR. 2. K. VINOD KUMAR, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAMBIAR BUILDING, SASTHA TEMPLE LANE, SRM ROAD, KOCHI-18. 3. P.V. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, THE CHAIRMAN, NAMBIAR BUILDING, SASTHA TEMPLE LANE, SRM ROAD, KOCHI-18. 4. P. DIVAKARAN @ BABU, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NAMBIAR BUILDING, SASTHA TEMPLE LANE, SRM ROAD, KOCHI-18. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R4 BY ADVS. MR.GEO PAUL, MR.SANU MATHEW, R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO. 981 OF 2003 --------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is admittedly prosecuting respondents 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in 8 complaints pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the court below has allowed the prayer made by one of the 4 accused to conduct a joint trial of all the 8 cases. The order passed by the learned Magistrate in this regard is impugned in this revision petition. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below ought not have granted the prayer especially when such a request was made only by one of the 4 accused. 4. The first accused is a company represented by its Chairman. Accused No.2 to 4 are respectively the Managing Director, the Chairman and the Executive Director of the said company. It is CRL.R.P.NO. 981 OF 2003 2 true that the application for joint trial was filed by the Executive Director. 5. It is the case of the Executive Director (accused No.4) that he had filed the said application as decided by the Company. Even otherwise I do not find any kind of incongruity or irregularity in the motion made by the Executive Director as authorized by the company. In any view of the matter petitioner/complainant cannot be said to have been prejudiced by the impugned order. 6. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. The grievance which is sought to be projected is wholly misconceived and untenable. Revision Petition fails, and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER JUDGE pkk