IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1814 of 2008() (AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP NO.5374/08 IN CC 437/07 OF JFCM COURT, KARUNAGAPPALY, DT.15.3.2008) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.E.ABDUL SALAM,VALIYATH VEETTIL, KANNANKARA BHAGOM, MANAYIL WARD, PANMANA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. C.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, KOCHUMADATHIL VEETTIL, NADUVILAKKARA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN FOR R2 PP MR.S U NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.02.2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- Cr. MC No.1814 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 3rd February 2010 Order This is a petition filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to have the order in CMP No.5374/08 in CC No.437/07 on the file of the JFCM Court, Karunagappally dated 15.03.2008, quashed. 2. The petitioner was an accused in CC No.437/07 of the JFCM Court, Karunagappally for having committed the offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the complainant's evidence was over, the accused was questioned under S.313 Cr. PC and thereafter, the case was posted for his evidence. It appears that he had filed a witness list. After examining one of the witnesses from the said list, the Court below closed the evidence and posted the case for hearing. Thereafter, the accused seems to have filed CMP No.5374/08, seeking to have the evidence re-opened, under S.311 Cr.PC. In the said petition, he pointed out that he had further evidence in support of his defence. The Court below dismissed the petition holding that sufficient opportunities had already been given to the petitioner. CRMC 1814/10 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there is no justification for the Trial Court in closing the evidence adduced by the accused and disallowing the petition filed by him for re-opening the evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that several opportunities had already been given to the petitioner to adduce evidence. 4. Whatever that be, the accused/the petitioner herin has pointed out that it has become necessary for the defence to examine two other witnesses, who were made mention of in the witness list submitted by him. There is no justification to disallow the said prayer. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court below for allowing the petitioner to adduce further evidence. The Court below shall dispose of the matter within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order irrespective of whether the petitioner herein takes steps for examination of witnesses. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta CRMC 1814/10 3 CRMC 1814/10 4