IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3457 of 2007() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/08/2007 IN CMP 1426/07 IN CC.225/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- M/S.MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVI- CES LTD.,HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 'SADHANA' (H), 2ND FLOOR,570, P.B.MARG, BEHIND MAHINDRA TOWERS WORLI, MUMBAI, DULY REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR.TONY GEORGE,29 YRS,BRANCH IN CHARGE,M/S.MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., KASARAGOD BRANCH. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. RESPONDENTS: REVN.RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MURALI KUMAR, (34 YEARS), FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE REVISION PETITIONER, MADAVATH HOUSE, KOLAPARAMBU, P.O.PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P. NO. 3457/2007 : 2 : ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO. 10134/2007 IN CRL.R.P. NO. 3457/2007 DISMISSED 25.03.2008 SD/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. /True Copy/ P.A to Judge. V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 3457 of 2007 ========================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner, who is the complainant in C.C. No. 225 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kasaragod, challenges the order dated 09.08.2007 passed by the Magistrate rejecting his petition to recall PW1. The purpose for which the request to recall PW1 was made was to mark the loan agreement in evidence. But by an inadvertent mistake instead of mentioning PW1 the petitioner mentioned PW2 and the petitioner claims to have filed Annexure I petition on 19.07.2007 for correcting the mistake in the application. Without noticing the said mistake, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application under the impression that the request was to recall PW2 and not PW1 and that the attempt of the petitioner was to drag the matter further. 3. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to recall PW1 for the purpose of CRL.R.P. NO. 3457/2007 : 2: marking the loan agreement. But it shall be only on payment of cost to the accused. Accordingly, the petitioner will be permitted to recall PW1 for the said purpose only if he deposits a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) by way of cost before the court below within two weeks from today. In case the petitioner fails to make the deposit, the impugned order will stand confirmed. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 3457/2007 : 3: