VALSAMMA Vs. SATHEESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision at the instance of the accused in C.C. 348/97 before the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate's Court, Kanjirappally, is challenging the order in C. M. P. 6156/2000 allowing the complainant to be examined further under S.311 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The respondent / complainant filed the complaint alleging the commission of an offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the allegations in the complaint, the revision petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs. 30,000/- and the same was dishonoured when presented for encashment and though the accused accepted the notice demanding the repayment of the amount, he did not reply or pay off the amount and hence the complaint was filed. But when the complainant was examined as PW. 1, he imposed that the amount given to the accused was Rs. 16,000/-. The accused raised a contention that the transaction between the parties was for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- and that amount was repaid and that he had not issued a cheque for Rs. 30,000/-. Later the complainant filed C. M. P. 6156/2000 under S.311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the complainant for giving further evidence for correcting the above statement that the accused borrowed Rs. 16,000/- was an inadvertent mistake committed during the examination and hence the complainant wanted to correct the above mistake. The court below allowed the petition and ordered to recall the complainant for further examination. The above order is under challenge in this revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the deposition given by the witnesses relating to the amount borrowed by the accused cannot be allowed to be corrected by invoking S.311 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for respondent / complainant submitted that it was not in the form of making a correction of the statement given by the complainant, but it was in the nature of giving an opportunity to explain the circumstances and to clarify the accidental mistake. It was further submitted that a notice was issued on the petitioner regarding the dishonouring of the cheque and demanding the payment of Rs. 30,000/- the cheque amount and that the above notice was accepted by the petitioner and even then no reply had been sent disputing the amount covered by the cheque. But when the complainant was examined as PW. 1, a suggestion was made to the effect that the transaction between the parties was for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- and the above amount had been repaid also, though no document were produced to substantiate the above contention.