PRASENAN B Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 examinedhimself asD.W.1. He had citedtwowitnesses 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, thepetitionerfiledan application torecall 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. Noother contentionsare raised.In para-5 ofthe order, the 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.