MUTHULEKSHMI AMMA Vs. PRABHAKARAN P K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in this case is the mother of the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said complainant is not available in India and is working abroad. A power of attorney holder of the complainant has been examined as a witness(PW1) on the side of the complainant. Such power of attorney holder in the course of evidence tendered by him, had stated that the accused has his house near the house of the mother of the complainant, i.e. the petitioner herein. The accused has a case that he has nothing to do with the complainant and that the complainant is a total stranger to him. It is in that context that the power of attorney(witness) was cross examined and the witness gave the answer that the complainant's mother has her house at Karthikappally and the house of the accused is near the said house of the petitioner herein.

(2.) The respondent accused has entered appearance. Arguments have been heard. The complainant has not been arrayed as an accused, but she is the mother of the petitioner. I am satisfied that the said inadequacy can be ignored.

(3.) The right of the accused to examine a defence witnesses in a summons trial is stipulated in Section 254(2) Cr.P.C. It reads as follows :