IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 732 of 2008() ------------------------ ST.2366/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV (MOBILE), TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ RAJESH NAIR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. K. SADASIVAN NAIR, SIVALAYAM, CHACKAI PETTAH P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.SAJIV.C.K. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. K. PARAMESWARAM NAIR, S/O. KUNJURAMAN NAIR, RESIDING AT ASWATHY BHAVAN, CHAVADINADA, VENGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2008 , THE COURT ON 18/02/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.Ramkumar, J. ................................................. Crl.M.C. No. 732 of 2008 .................................................. Dated: 18th February 2008 ORDER Petitioner who is the accused in S.T. 2366 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate IV (Mobile court), Thiruvananthapuram involving a cheque for Rs. 50,000/-, challenges the order dated 25-1-2008 passed by the Magistrate dismissing his application to issue summons to the witnesses in the additional witness list filed by him. It was after three adjournments that the petitioner examined himself as D.W.1 in this case. On the same day, he filed a witness list before the Court. Apart from the fact that the names of those witnesses were not mentioned in the petition filed by him, there was no whisper about those witnesses on his examination before Court as D.W.1. His version before court was that at a time when he was in Delhi in connection with his business, he had lost the cheque leaf in question and a stamp paper worth Rs. 100/- and he had lodged a complaint before the Delhi Police and it was to substantiate this contention that he wanted to adduce defence -:2:- evidence. 2. The alleged borrowal was at Thiruvananthapuram and both the petitioner/accused as well as the first respondent/complainant are residents of Thiruvananthapuram. Assuming that the petitioner lost the cheque leaf while he was at Delhi it is unbelievable that the first respondent/complainant residing at Thiruvananthapuram got the said cheque leaf to enable him to file the complaint in question. The petitioner was indulging in a dilatory tactics and the court below was fully justified in dismissing his application. I am not inclined to interfere with this petition which is accordingly dismissed. V.Ramkumar, Judge. ani. -:3:-