IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 100 of 2008() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/09/2007 IN CMP 1623 2007 IN ST.119/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------------------------- JAYAMOHAN.N. ,S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR LEELA VIHAR, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM-8. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 2. SRIRAM INVESTMENT LIMITED BRANCH NAZEEMA COMPLEX HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.S. VIMAL KRISHNAN, S/O. G.BALAKRISHNAN PILLAI,ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SHRIRAM INVESTMENT LIMITED KOLLAM.. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR SRI.C.HARIKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.100 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008 ORDER The petitioner who is the accused in S.T.No.119/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in respect of a cheque for a sum of Rs.2,38,487.50, challenges Annexure C order dated 20.9.07 passed by the J.F.C.M-III, Kollam dismissing his application filed as CMP No.1623/2007 for further cross examining PW1-complainant and for getting the three documents marked. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The impugned order states that the Court had given ample opportunity to cross examine PW1 and the same was not availed of by the petitioner. Annexures D,E,F produced in this Crl.M.C. are the three documents which the petitioner wanted to be admitted in evidence. Annexure D is a true copy of the Lease Agreement. Annexure E is a true copy of the agreement dated 5.08.03 allegedly between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Annexure F is a copy of the written statement filed by the 2nd Crl.M.C.No.100 of 2008 2 respondent before the Munsiff's Court, Kollam in O.S.No.887/2003. The specific stand of the petitioner when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C was that there was absolutely no transaction with the complainant in this case. Such a person cannot be permitted to mark the Lease Agreement and the further agreement mentioned in the petition. He was given ample opportunity by the trial court to adduce evidence. Even two defence witnesses cited by him were not examined. He himself did not mount the witness box to give evidence in support of the defence. His attempt was only to protract the proceedings. Hence, I see no ground to interfere with Annexure C order. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj