IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1816 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/03/2008 IN CMP.1678 & 1679/2008 IN CC.1062/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SONY JOSEPH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, ETTACKAL HOUSE, CHAKKAMPUZHA DESOM, VELLIPALLY VILLAGE, MENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM-686 574. BY ADV. SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM SRI.NISHIN GEORGE VIJAYABABU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. T.G.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, VILAKKUMADAM, POOVARANY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SIJU RAJAN FOR R1 SRI.JOSEPH T.JOHN FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1816 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner did get opportunity to cross-examine the complainant; but after the evidence was closed, the petitioner made an application for permission to further cross-examine the complainant after recalling him. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected the said prayer. Two petitions were disposed of by the same order. First was to recall PW1 and the other was to direct the complainant to produce details of his bank account for the relevant month. 2. When the complainant was made available for cross- examination earlier, this question was not put to the complainant because of an omission, it is submitted. It is prayed that further opportunity may be given to the accused to recall the complainant and cross-examine him. The purpose is to elicit the name of the bank from which the complainant had withdrawn the amounts which was allegedly advanced to the accused as consideration for the cheques. Crl.M.C.No.1816/08 2 3. The impugned order is an interlocutory order and is not amenable to challenge in revision. In an appropriate case in the interests of justice notwithstanding the bar against revision of interlocutory orders this court certainly has the jurisdictional competence to issue directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. But on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs I am not persuaded to agree that in the facts and circumstances of this case such powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or ought to be invoked. Ordinarily and normally the petitioner must wait for the proceedings to be completed to challenge the impugned order along with the final order to be passed in the prosecution. I find no reason not to insist on that course in the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. I may, however, hasten to observe that I choose to take the view only that the impugned order does not warrant any interference at this stage by invocation of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.1816/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.1816/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007