M.N. HARIHARAN Vs. S. VIJAYALEKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner, who is the complainant in S.T. 2321 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Varkala, assails Annexure A5 order in CMP No. 1612 of 2010 whereby his request for reopening the evidence of PW 1 and to adduce further evidence, was declined. The learned magistrate dismissed the petition after arriving at a finding that the purpose of recalling the witness is for filling up of the lacuna. Though, in the affidavit accompanying Annexure A4 petition, the petitioner had mentioned about certain other evidence to be brought on record, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is confining his request only regarding the clarification of the date of the issuance of the cheque. According to the learned counsel, the cheque was issued on 19.9.2007. It was affirmed in the affidavit also. But during the cross examination, in the deposition it is seen recorded as 19.7.2007 instead of 19.9.2007. According to the learned counsel, it is to clarify the same, PW. 1 is sought to be recalled.

(2.) Having gone through the chief affidavit and the deposition, I find that there is some inconsistency regarding the date of the issuance of the cheque. Probably that may be a slip of the tung. The possibility for wrongly recording the deposition also cannot be ruled out. In the above circumstances, I find that it would be appropriate to allow the petition to recall PW. 1 and to adduce further evidence pertaining to the date of issuance of the cheque.