IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 805 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 713/08 IN ST.1432/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------- MATHEW ANTONY, THURUTHIPPALLIL HOUSE, NEAR ST.MARY'S CHURCH, KURAVILANGADU. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. BABU JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, MATTATHIL MANNULLIL, KOZHA KARA, KURAVILANGADU. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ====================================== CRL.R.P. NO.805 OF 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 6th day of June 2008 ORDER Petitioner, who is the accused in S.T.No.1432/2004 on the file of JFCM, Pala, which is a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, involving a cheque for Rs.50,000/-, challenges the order dated 21.2.2008 passed by the Magistrate dismissing CMP No.713/2008 to re-open the evidence and to examine one more witness on the defence side to substantiate his contentions. 2. According to the petitioner, the cheque in question was forcibly snatched away from his possession by the first respondent/complainant and the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the Circle Inspector of Police, Ettumanoor against the complainant on the very same day and it was to substantiate the lodgment of the said complaint that the petitioner wanted to examine one C.D.Varghese who had allegedly written down the complaint in his handwriting. 3. The first respondent/complainant has not entered crrp 805/2008 2 appearance, in spite of due service of notice in this revision. 3. The court below was not justified in shutting out evidence of the petitioner, who claims to have a specific defence. Hence the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner shall be permitted to examine the said witness. The petitioner shall appear before the court below without any further notice on 19.6.2008. This revision is disposed of as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE css/