PEARL PET PACKAGINGS PRIVATE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused facing allegations under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Trial has commenced on 1.8.2006. The proof affidavit was filed and the documents were marked. The accused was absent. The counsel was not ready for cross examination. The matter was posted to 9.8.2006 with the endorsement that no further time shall be granted.

(2.) On 9.8.2006, the complainant and the accused were absent. The learned Magistrate is seen to have posted the case for S.313 examination. The grievance of the petitioners is that the learned Magistrate posted the case for S.313 examination even before giving the petitioners an opportunity to cross examine the complainant.

(3.) I have been taken through Annex.II, which is a certified copy of the order sheet maintained by the learned Magistrate. On going through the order sheet the grievance of the petitioners appears to be justified. On 1.8.2006, the order sheet would reveal that the next posting to 9.8.2006 was for cross examination of the Crl.M.C.No. 2777 of 2006 2 complainant with a direction that there shall be no further time. But on 9.8.06 though the complainant was absent, the case was posted for S.313 examination. Obviously the procedure adopted by the Magistrate is incorrect.