High Court Criminal Misc. No. 1044 of 2018 dismissed a petition filed by an accused under Section 311 CrPC seeking examination of additional defence witnesses. The court held the accused had sufficient opportunities and the petition was intended to delay proceedings.
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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 1044 of 2018
(AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP.6743/17 IN CC 2261/2015 JFCM-XII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED
SHAJITHA AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. HAMEED, R.S NIVAS, KALLOOR, MANJAMALA P.O., MELOTHONNACKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.JAYAKRISHNAN R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI C K PRASAD
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1044 of 2018 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| ANNEXURE I |
TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 311 CRPC. |
|---|---|
| ANNEXURE II |
TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT BELOW. |
| ANNEXURE III |
TRUE COPY OF THE CHIEF AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH CROSS-EXAMINATION. |
| ANNEXURE IV |
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2018 IN CMP NO. 6743/17 IN CC NO. 261/2015 PASSED BY JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-XII |
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.2261 of 2015
on the files of the court below. The offence alleged is the
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Bank Managers of drawee and drawer banks and the previous counsel for the complainant, as defence witnesses.
Crl.M.C.1044/18
-: 2 :-
The court below dismissed the said petition as per Annexure-IV order, against which this Crl.M.C. has been filed.
was granted 13 opportunity for adducing defence evidence. Thereafter, the case stood posted for hearing. The case was posted for hearing on seven occasions. At last, the case was heard on 20.11.2017 and posted for judgment to 23.11.2017. On that day, the petitioner was absent and hence, the case was again posted for judgment to 27.11.2017 and from that day, to 5.12.2017 for the same reason. On 5.12.2017, the above petition was filed. I have
Crl.M.C.1044/18
-: 3 :-
gone through the relevant inputs and I am fully convinced that the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to adduce defence evidence and the intention of the petitioner in filing C.M.P. No.6743 of 2017 was only to procrastinate the proceedings of the court below. In the said circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with AnnexureIV order passed by the court below.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands dismissed.
SD
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
dl/22.2.18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow the accused under Section 311 CrPC to examine additional defence witnesses including SHO, Bank Managers and previous counsel.
Whether the petitioner's intention in filing the additional witnesses petition was to procrastinate the proceedings of the trial court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shajitha
State of Kerala
Chandan
B. Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
