IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2649 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/07/2008 IN CRMP 213/2008 IN ST.704/2005 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER / PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------- P.V.POULOSE, S/O.VARGHESE, PYNADATH KUTTIKATTIL HOUSE, NAYATHODE KARA, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANIL.P.PAUL, S/O.P.V.POULOSE, -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE SRI.M.C.ANTONY RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT/ACCUSED AND STATE: ------------------------------------------ 1. JOSHY, S/O.SCARIA, PARACKAKAL HOUSE, NEAR ST. SEBASTIAN'S HIGH SCHOOL, KANJOOR P.O. VIA.KALADY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J ============== Crl.R.P.No. 2649 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner who is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 challenges the order dated 26.7.2008 in Crl.M.P.No.213/2008 filed by him for recalling PW1, who was his power of attorney holder. The complainant did not step into the witness box. Instead his son who was holding his power of attorney was examined as PW1. During the examination of PW1, he could not identify the accused standing in a group photograph shown to him from the side of the defence. He had deposed that he could not identify the accused without wearing spectacles. It was to disabuse the mind of the court regarding the impression of PW1 that the petitioner filed the above petition submitting that PW1 should be given an opportunity to be examined further after wearing spectacles. It was the hypersensitivity of the petitioner which forced him to file the above petition which was not at all necessary. By filing the petition and suffering the impugned Crl.R.P.No. 2649 OF 2008 2 order, he has unnecessarily exposed himself to the discomfiture of being disbelieved for the conduct of PW1. The impression which the presiding officer of a court may gather about a witness is not something which can be effaced by the witness. Whatever spoken and performed in the witness box are matters for the appreciation of the judge who recorded the evidence. The court below was therefore fully justified in dismissing the application. However, it is made clear that the observations and findings in the impugned order shall not be taken into account by the Magistrate while finally disposing of the matter. For the disposal of the case, he shall only consider the evidence adduced before him and also the impressions gathered from the demeanour of the witnesses. Accordingly, this revision petition fails and it is dismissed. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE bkn/-