The High Court of Kerala dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous petition filed by a complainant under Section 138 NI Act, upholding the lower court's refusal to recall witnesses for further examination.
The prayer to recall witnesses Pw2 and Dw1 for further examination was denied, and the petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU
MONDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2006 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1928
Crl.M.C.No. 5699 of 2003(B)
-------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/11/2003 IN CMP 2299 2003 IN CC.103/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HARIPAD
PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT
C.SURESH RAJ, VALIYAVEETTIL, MUTHUKULAM VADAKKUM, CHOOLATHERUVU P.O.
BY ADV. SRI.R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED AND STATE
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.R. UDAYABHANU,J -------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 5699 of 2003
Dated this the 13th day of November,2006
ORDER
Petitioner, who is the complainant in C.C.No. 103/2000 in the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Haripad, with respect to the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, has sought for setting aside the order of the court below, declining the prayer of the petitioner to reopen the evidence recalling Pw2 and Dw1 for further examination. It is submitted that the cheque is time barred and that the same was issued as a security for an amount of Rs.40,000/- borrowed by another person in 1994 and that the signature appeared in the cheque and the specimen signature given in the bank are different. According to the petitioner/complainant the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused and not because of any difference in signature. According to the petitioner/complainant, the accused, at the time of trial when he was examined attempted to prove that the signature in the cheque is different and that the signature is one the accused used to put at the point of time before 1997. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition to recall and examine the Bank manager who was examined as Pw2 and Dw1, the accused.
2
Crl.M.C.No. 5699 of 2003
In the result, the Crl.M.C is dismissed.
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE
dvs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Judicial Magistrate's order declining the petition to recall witnesses Pw2 and Dw1.
Whether the lower court discharged its duty in dismissing the application without exercising discretion improperly.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.SURESH RAJ
STATE
K.BABUKUTTAN
K.R.UDAYABHANU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
