IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3970 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP. 2969 /2008 IN ST.2899/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- K.SUBAIR, AGED 35 YEARS, MOIDEEN KUNHI, VAYAKKOT HOUSE, KANNUR CITY, KANNUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------- 1. P.P.M.SADIQUE, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, BADARIYA MANZIL, CHEMBILODE, KANNUR DT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3970 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Trial has commenced. It is said that the complainant in the course of cross examination made an assertion that the cheque was issued for the due discharge of a liability and admitted that that liability was created by issue of a cheque drawn on an account maintained by the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant had made an admission that he is retaining with him a copy of the cheque issued by him to the accused on the basis of which the liability arose. 2. The accused denied such liability. To discharge his burden under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act., the accused prayed that the complainant may be directed to produce the copy of the cheque retained by him and the details of the account maintained by the complainant in which that cheque was issued. The complainant did not produce the same. The complainant in the counter statement took the stand that he Crl.M.C. No.3970 of 2008 2 does not have the copy of the cheque. He further took the stand that he does not remember the number of the account. The learned Magistrate, in these circumstances, dismissed the petition noting that the number of the account has not been furnished. 3. The petitioner/accused claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. It is for the complainant to produce the copy of the cheque maintained by him or to furnish the details of the account in which he had issued the cheque to the accused, on the basis of which the liability arose. If the complainant does not produce the copy of the cheque or furnish the details of the account, the petitioner can certainly request the learned Magistrate to draw adverse inferences. Appropriate decisions will have to be taken by the learned Magistrate while disposing of the case. 4. In any view of the matter, I am not satisfied that the impugned order deserves or warrants interference invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The complainant had asserted that the copy of the cheque is not with him. He has not produced the same. He had asserted that the cheque was issued on an account maintained by him at the request of the accused. The complainant has not specified the Crl.M.C. No.3970 of 2008 3 details of that account. I am, in these circumstances, of the opinion that the petitioner only need request the learned Magistrate to draw appropriate inferences and no further directions are necessary in the matter now. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-