Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RADHAKRISHNAN versus K.MURALEESHARAN NAIR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RADHAKRISHNAN v. K.MURALEESHARAN NAIR - Crl MC No. 3522 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 2452 (4 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3522 of 2006()

1. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. K.MURALEESHARAN NAIR, S/O.KESAVA PILLAI,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

For Petitioner :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :04/12/2006

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.NO. 3522 OF 2006

Dated this the 4th day of December, 2006

ORDER

The petitioner is an accused in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act. The case was filed in 2005. It stood posted for judgment. At that stage, the petitioner appears to have filed this petition to get the cheque (there are two cheques involved in the case) compared with the signature in the acknowledgment card which was produced by the complainant to prove the due service of the notice of demand. Even in the cross-examination, it is pointed out, a dispute was raised that the signature in the acknowledgment card is not that of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate passed the impugned order rejecting the said prayer. The learned Magistrate appears to have felt that the application is belated and that the signature, at an undisputed point of time, was not available for comparison.

2. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion or expression of opinion on merits. Suffice it to say that at this stage I am not persuaded to agree that the powers under CRL.M.C.NO. 3522 OF 2006 -: 2 :- Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can or need be invoked to interfere with the impugned order. An interlocutory order is kept beyond pale of challenge by revision and the purpose of such bar is evident. The petitioner can certainly challenge the order, if the same be necessary, along with the judgment to be passed in the prosecution.

3. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed; but without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order, if the same be necessary, along with the final order to be passed in the prosecution. Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.