IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3556 of 2008() ------------------------- CRRP.113/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.4348/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD (CRMP 3348/2006) .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O LATE K.K. MENON, AGED 50 YEARS, SARASWATHI NILAYAM, VATTEKKARA POST, KADAMPAZHIPURAM, PALAKKAD. 2. S.JAYAKRISHNAN, S/O S.K.V. SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 52 YEARS, DEVA KRIPA, KOTTIYAM, KADAMPAZHIPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S GAYATHRI INDUSTRIEAL COMBINES PANNIYAMPADAM,MUNDUR POST, PALAKKAD, REP. BY P.M. THOMAS, MANAGING PARTNER, 2. M/S NAVANEETHAM ASSOCIATES, CHOLAYIL BUILDUBGS, KADAMPUZHIPURAM POST, PALAKKAD. 3. STATE OF KERALA , REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3556 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008 ORDER The petitioners face indictment in five different prosecutions – all under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. They filed application before the learned Magistrate that the five different cases – all pending before the same court, may be jointly tried in view of the proviso to Sec.218 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate rejected the said prayer. A revision was filed before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge also upheld the decision of the learned Magistrate and rejected the challenge in revision. 2. A second revision is not maintainable in the light of Sec.397(3) Cr.P.C. and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners have come to this Court with this petition by affixing the label of Sec.482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. No. 3556 of 2008 -: 2 :- 3. The impugned orders have been perused by me. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge had made the very specific observation that the trial in the cases have already commenced and, in these circumstances, a joint trial cannot and need not be directed at this stage. 4. In the course of discussions at the Bar on 23/9/08, it was felt that a report of the learned Magistrate must be called for. The report of the learned Magistrate, ascertained by the Registrar, reads as follows: “As directed, I contacted the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Palakkad. The learned Magistrate after verification informed that trial of S.T.Nos.4328. 4347, 4348, 4350 and 4361 of 2004 has commenced. Evidence of P.W.1 has been recorded by way of affidavit and complaint's evidence closed. Questioning of two accused under Sec.313 is over. Defence filed a petition to recall complainant for cross-examination. That was allowed on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-. Since the cost was not paid, the petition was dismissed. The cases now stand posted for further defence evidence and arguments to 24/9/2008.” Crl.M.C. No. 3556 of 2008 -: 3 :- 5. It is evident that the trial has not only commenced; but advanced substantially. Sec.313 examination is over partly. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this attempt at the third tier to get consolidation of the trial in the 5 cases pending is without any merit. 6. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge