Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRASENAN.B., S/O.K.K.BHANU versus STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PRASENAN.B., S/O.K.K.BHANU v. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC - Crl MC No. 1066 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 7159 (4 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1066 of 2007()

1. PRASENAN.B., S/O.K.K.BHANU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent

2. M.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :04/04/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.NO. 1066 OF 2007

Dated this the 4th day of April, 2007

ORDER

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial has reached the stage of defence evidence. The petitioner examined himself as D.W.1. He had cited two witnesses as D.Ws.2 and 3. On the date of their examination, the counsel was not personally present. D.W.2 was examined and the documents were marked. D.W.3, who was cited, was not examined. Later, the petitioner filed an application to recall D.Ws.2 and 3. The learned Magistrate considered the said request in detail. Permission was not granted to recall D.W.2. Permission was granted to recall D.W.3, subject to conditions.

2. The petitioner has now come to this Court complaining about the refusal for permission to recall D.W.2. No other contentions are raised. In para-5 of the order, the CRL.M.C.NO. 1066 OF 2007 -: 2 :- learned Magistrate has adverted in detail to the circumstances which prompted the court not to grant the said request to recall D.W.2 - a Bank Manager, employed at Punalur. The court found that both circumstances to prove which D.W.2 was examined have already been introduced in evidence and there is no need to recall D.W.2, who is working far away at Punalur.

3. Though an opportunity has been given pointedly to explain how the reason given in para-5 is not satisfactory or defective, none has been urged before me. I find the reason given by the court to be convincing. At any rate, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order by invoking the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.

4. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. 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.