IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3773 of 2009 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2009 IN CMP 2376/2009 IN ST.2626/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER-COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------- P.RAJU, PULLANAPALLIL HOUSE, KUDAMALOOR POST, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. K.K.SWAMINATHAN, VIDYABHAVAN,PANDALAM POST, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN FOR R1 SRI.R.REJI FOR R1 SRI.B.BIPIN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3773 of 2009 - B --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is a petition filed by the complainant in a case for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the order passed by the court below by which the request of the accused for reopening the evidence of the complainant and further examination of PW1 was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that no reason is stated in the impugned order in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner made available to me a copy of the petition preferred by counsel for the accused in the said case before the court. It is clearly stated that at the time of examination of the complainant, the accused was absent and therefore, the complainant could not be examined properly and Crl.R.P.NO. 3773 of 2009 :-2-: therefore, he sought for further examination of PW1/the complainant. 3. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the petition itself is not maintainable and the petition under Section 311 was filed for the reason that counsel appearing for the accused could not effectively conduct cross-examination of PW1 as the counsel was not in a position to get timely instruction from the accused as he was absent. From the impugned order, the learned Magistrate came into a conclusion that for the interest of justice and for the just decision, the petition is to be allowed and accordingly, the petition is allowed by reopening the evidence of the complainant. From the facts stated above, I am of the view that it is for the trial court on merit to decide whether the application for further examination of the complainant or any witness should be allowed or not. In the present case, the learned Magistrate came into such decision and recorded his satisfaction for allowing the Crl.R.P.NO. 3773 of 2009 :-3-: petition. No case is made out to interfere with such order. There is no merit in the revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. sd/- V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE. Crl.R.P.NO. 3773 of 2009 :-4-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO. OF 200 ------------------------------------ -------- O R D E R Crl.R.P.NO. 3773 of 2009 :-5-: DATED: -10-2009