The High Court of Kerala dismissed a revision petition challenging an order allowing the complainant to recall an examined witness to mark additional documents. The court held revision is not maintainable against such interlocutory orders and found no prejudice to the accused.
Criminal Revision Petition No. 86 of 2020 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 R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 1ST MAGHA, 1941
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.86 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1557/2016 OF JMFC(SPECIAL COURT) FOR TRIAL OF SEC.138, NI ACT CASES (TEMPORA
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHAJU JACOB AGED 44 YEARS S/O. V.A. JACOB, VADAKKETHALA HOUSE, ELTHURUTH P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 611.
BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE SRI.P.K.HASSANKUTTY
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE0:
1 M/S.HDFC BANK LTD 1ST FLOOR, CHOICE TOWERS, MANORAMA JUNCTION, KOCHI, 682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, MRS. SREEKALA .S., AGED 44 YEARS.
SRI AJITH MURALI-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.86 OF 2020
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the accused in the case C.C No.1557/2016 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (N.I Act Cases), Ernakulam.
submit that the documents proposed to be marked by the
3
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.86 OF 2020
complainant were available with the complainant from the very beginning of the trial of the case but the application was filed by the complainant at a belated stage to adduce additional evidence and that allowing the application by the trial court has caused serious prejudice to the accused.
4
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.86 OF 2020
costs of Rs.300/- to the accused.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
JUDGE
rpk
5
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.86 OF 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 PHOTOCOPY OF PETITION FILED IN C.C. 1557/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF HONBLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS (N.I ACT) ERNAKULAM UNDER SECTION 311 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ANNEXURE A2 PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER FILED IN C.C. 1557/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF HONBLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS (N.I. ACT CASES), ERNAKULAM.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal revision petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order allowing recall of a witness to mark additional documents under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Whether the trial court committed any illegality or impropriety by allowing the complainant to recall PW1 to mark documents obtained from the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sethuraman vs. RajamanickamReferred¶27
Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam : (2009) 5 SCC 153 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Shaju Jacob
M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd
State of Kerala
R. Narayana Pisharadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
