Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S.TUBE ASSOCIATES, A PROPRIETARY versus P.D.RAJESH, S/O.PLAMOOTIL DEVASSY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S.TUBE ASSOCIATES, A PROPRIETARY v. P.D.RAJESH, S/O.PLAMOOTIL DEVASSY - Crl MC No. 2309 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 4117 (21 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2309 of 2006()

1. M/S.TUBE ASSOCIATES, A PROPRIETARY
... Petitioner

Vs

1. P.D.RAJESH, S/O.PLAMOOTIL DEVASSY,
... Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA,

For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :21/12/2006

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C.NO.2309 OF 2006

Dated this the 21st day of December, 2006.

ORDER

The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. His application under Section 311 Cr.P.C to re-open the evidence and examine one witness was turned down by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to complain about the rejection of his petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

2. Initially the grievance was that an offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act has been committed. In the course of the trial, the complainant came to realise that the cheque issued was really not one of which the accused is an account holder. In these circumstances, it was prayed and the said request was accepted by the court, that the charge may be altered to one under Section 420 I.P.C. The evidence was closed. The matter was posted for 313 examination. At that stage, the complainant made a request to examine one more witness, who was not available after re-opening the evidence. That application was rejected by the learned Magistrate holding that sufficient reasons are not there to invoke the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C.NO.2309 OF 2006 2

3. Counsel have been heard. I shall scrupulously avoid any detailed reference to disputed facts. Suffice it to say that I am persuaded that the interests of justice shall be served ideally by granting the petitioner one further opportunity to adduce further evidence by examining the one witness referred in the petition.

4. In the result:

a) This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, allowed.

b) The impugned order is set aside;

c) It is directed that the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity to examine the witness, whom he wants to examine. The learned Magistrate shall post the case specifically to a date for such examination. Witness shall be examined on that date. R.BASANT

JUDGE

rtr/


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.