IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 392 of 2010() ------------------------ ST.2314/2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS-V, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- REJIMOL THOMAS, D/O.THOMAS, AMAL GARDENS, PARAMALAYIL, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.RUBY K.JOSE RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED & STATE ------------------------------ 1. SHAJAN CHAKKIATH, SOLE PROPRIETOR, SHAROES, 19/103 ALUVA ROAD, ANGAMALY (CHAKKIATH HOUSE, ELAVOOR, ANGAMALY). 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMMAPPU SRI.JAISON JOSEPH FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. --------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.392 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010 ORDER Petitioner who is the complainant in S.T.No.2314 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-V, Kottayam which is a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 involving a cheque for Rupees fifteen lakhs challenges Annexure-6 order dated 25/1/2010 passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing her petition (C.M.P.No.1872/2009) filed for re-opening the evidence for the purpose of marking thirteen additional documents on her side. 2. I heard both sides. The main reason given by the learned Magistrate for rejecting the application is that the petitioner was examined as PW.1 as early as on 31/3/2008 and the present petition was filed in the year 2009 on a day on which the case stood posted for arguments and that a perusal of the document list would reveal that the contention of the accused that they are not relevant in the case has much substance. Crl.M.C.No.392/2010 : 2 : 3. The petitioner certainly deserved a speaking order for disposal of C.M.P.No.1872/2009. After all, the case involves high stakes. Bilated production of the documents could have been compensated by an order for costs. As to the relevance of the 12 documents produced, the learned Magistrate ought to have given valid reasons as to why those documents were not relevant. The impugned order is virtually a non-speaking order. Annexure-6 order is accordingly set aside and C.M.P.No.1872/2009 filed before the Magistrate shall stand restored to file and the learned Magistrate shall pass a speaking order after giving both sides an opportunity of being heard. This Criminal M.C. is disposed of as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj