Partly allowed

Bhuvanadas v. Ramakrishnan

Kerala HC29 Mar 2021Crl.MC/904/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court in Crl.MC.904/21 allowed a petitioner accused under NI Act to examine an additional witness. The High Court set aside an order refusing a summons, directed the Magistrate to issue the summons, and mandated disposal within two months to balance the right to evidence against trial delays.

What did the court decide?

Annexure A2 order setting aside; summons directed to be issued to petitioner's witness for examination within two months.

Bhuvanadas Vs Ramakrishnan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.MC.904/21

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1943

¶7

Crl.MC.No.904 OF 2021(C)

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1241/2016 OF JMFC - VIII, ERNAKULAM (TEMPORARY)

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

BHUVANADAS

¶11

AGED 57 YEARS S/O.UNNI, CHORATH NIVASIL, THATHAMANGALAM, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD.

¶12

BY ADVS. SHRI.A.S.SASIDHARAN SRI.V.J.JAMES

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 RAMAKRISHNAN

¶15

AGED 55, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, ENNIRAM HOUSE, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 011

¶16

2 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 031.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.PETER M.PAUL

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

PP T.R.RENJITH

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC.904/21

V.G.ARUN, J.

CRL.M.C.No. 904 of 2021

¶25

Dated this the 29^th day of March, 2021

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The challenge in this Crl.M.C is against Annexure A2 order, rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The short facts are as follows; The petitioner is the accused in the complaint filed by the 1^st respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After letting in defence evidence, petitioner filed an application, seeking permission to examine one more witness and undertook to produce the witness. Based on the undertaking, the application was allowed. Later, the petitioner sought issuance of summons to that witness, which the Court found to be against his earlier undertaking and hence, issued Annexure A2 order, rejecting the prayer and closing the evidence.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, evidence of the witness sought to be examined is crucial as far as the petitioner is concerned and that the undertaking to produce the witness was made under the impression that he would appear on his own. That, on contacting the witness, he refused to appear and give evidence unless summoned before Court. This necessitated filing of the application seeking issuance of summons.

¶29

Crl.MC.904/21

¶30

¶31

Learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/complainant submits that the calender case is of the year 2016 and examination of the witness to be summoned should not result in trial of the case being delayed further.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I find that, the petitioner should not be denied the opportunity to let in defence evidence. At the same time, permission to examine one more witness should not delay the trial either.

¶33

The Crl.M.C is hence disposed of, setting aside Annexure A2 and directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate-VIII, Ernakulam to issue summons to the witness named in the application filed by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate shall take earnest efforts to dispose the calender case as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

Sd/- V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

vgs

Crl.MC.904/21

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶40

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.1241/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VIII, ERNAKULAM DATED 4.2.2015.

¶41

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION C.M.P.NO.132/2021 IN C.C.NO.1241/2016 OF THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VIII, ERNAKULAM DATED 23.1.2021.

Bhuvanadas v. Ramakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuvanadas v. Ramakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aji Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Jinson Babu Vs State of Kerala

George John Vs the State of Kerala

Joseph Kurian Vs Johney Joseph

Binas Haneefa Vs State of Kerala