IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 246 of 2010() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 453/09 IN CC.297/2005 of JDUL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAMANKARY .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.MALAYALAM SOLVENT EXTRACTIONS LTD., KEZHUVAMKULAM, PALAI. 2. MATHEWS MANUEL, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.MALAYALAM SOLVENT EXTRACTIONS LTD., KEZHUVAMKULAM, PALAI. 3. SUBY MATHEWS, DIRECTOR, M/S.MALAYALAM SOLVENT EXTRACTIONS LTD., KEZHUVAMKULAM, PALAI. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.M.JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR MATHA STORES, KIDANGARA REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.D.THOMAS. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 246 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 18.7.2009 in C.M.P.453 of 2009 in C.C. No.297 of 2005 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary. 2. Petitioners are the accused in C.C. 297 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint is that initially when the case was posted for hearing, the complainant had filed a petition to re-open the evidence and that was allowed. The witness was examined. Thereafter when it was posted for hearing, another petition was filed. That was also allowed. Again when the matter was posted for hearing, the complainant filed a petition for recalling another witness. According to the petitioners, this is a clear case of abuse of process of court. It is also contended Crl.M.C.246/2010. 2 that that the matter sought to be proved is alien to the proceedings and the evidence that is sought to be adduced by the complainant is already on record. 3. It has to be noticed that the complainant had filed a petition seeking to recall a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C.. A counter has also been filed by the petitioner herein. Except saying that this is a clear case of abuse of process of court, no cogent reasons are given as to why the evidence should not be re-opened. The court below, after applying its mind found that the recalling of the witness is necessary for a just and proper decision in the case. I see no error in the order warranting interference by this court. This petition is dismissed. However, the court below is directed to expedite the matter. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.