Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Kerala High Court

Sudhakaran vs State Of Kerala on 1 June, 2022

Author: Mary Joseph

Bench: Mary Joseph

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

    WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944

                      CRL.MC NO. 3317 OF 2022

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.4.2022 IN CMP NO.71/2021 IN CC 30/2017

     OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KAYAMKULAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

            SUDHAKARAN, AGED 56 YEARS
            S/O PADMANABHAN
            SURENDRAVILASAM VEEDU, IDAKKUNNAM MURI,
            CHARUMMOOD P.O., NOORANAD, PIN - 690505

            BY ADV RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL


RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            PIN - 682031

    2       S.R. CHITS AND GRAND CURIES
            REPRESENTED BY RAMACHANDRAN,MANAGING PARTNER,
            3RD FLOOR,CENTRE POINT, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, K.P. ROAD,
            KAYAMKULAM, PIN - 690572


OTHER PRESENT:

            PP SRI C.S.SREEJITH


        THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.3317/2022
                                  2




                              ORDER

Dated this the 1st day of June, 2022.

It is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C) seeking to set aside an order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kayamkulam in CMP No. 71/2021 in C.C. No.30/2017. C.C. No.30/2017 is a prosecution launched by the 2nd respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short NI Act).

2. The complainant is a Firm and in the complaint it was represented by its Managing Partner. Due to personal inconvenience of the Managing Partner, a Power of Attorney was executed in favour of the 2nd respondent and he was examined as PW1. During Cross examination the petitioner was questioned on his association with the Firm and he failed to state it. After closure of his evidence, an application was moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C seeking to produce a document appointing him as Accounts Manager of the Firm. The court below has allowed the Crl.M.C.No.3317/2022 3 application and permitted the production of the document. It is the said order that is taken up in challenge in the proceedings on hand.

3. According to the learned counsel, the document permitted to be produced would help the complainant to fill up the lacuna in the case and that is impermissible in law. According to her, the impugned order will not sustain for the reason.

4. The document now permitted to be produced is required to establish the association of the petitioner as its Accounts Manager. The application seeking for production of the document was filed in time. Petitioner can challenge its marking.

5. Admittedly, the association of the petitioner with the Firm was questioned. The document proposed for marking being one liable to indicate his association with the Firm, it ought to have been there as part of the record of evidence.

6. Section 311 empowers a court to recall and re-examine a witness during any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, if his evidence appears to it Crl.M.C.No.3317/2022 4 essential for arriving at a just decision in his case. The court below has exercised it's power under Section 311 Cr.P.C on being convinced that recalling of PW1 for marking the additional document proposed for the purpose is essential for taking a proper decision in the case. The petitioner can cross examine PW1, on the legality of execution of the document, if it is doubted. The court below cannot be found fault with in passing the order assailed.

Crl.M.C fails and is dismissed for the reason.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE al/-..

5 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3317/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT INITIALLY FILED BEFORE JFCM-II, MAVELIKARA BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND TRANSFERRED AND NUMBERED AS CC NO.30/2017 OF JFCM COURT-II, KAYAMKULAM Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY MR. RAMACHANDRAN IN FAVOUR OF HIS YOUNGER BROTHER SHRI. CHANDRASEKHARAN P. Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AS PW1 IN CC NO.30/2017 OF JFCM COURT-II, KAYAMKULAM Annexure D A TRUE COPY OF CMP 71/2021 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CC NO.30/2017 OF JFCM COURT-II, KAYAMKULAM Annexure E A TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT DATED 31/01/2013 PRODUCED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ANNEXURE D PETITION Annexure F A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO ANNEXURE D PETITION Annexure G A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/04/2022 OF THE JFCM COURT-II, KAYAMKULAM IN CMP NO.71/2021 IN CC NO.30/2017