N. HENTRY Vs. P. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kuzhithurai dated 23.1.2013 in C.C. No. 149 of 2005 dismissing the petition filed under Section 254(2), Cr.P.C.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

(3.) IT is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it has been averred in the complaint that the petitioner/accused borrowed the amount at the complainant's residence on 6.8.2004 and issued the cheque on the same day but the real fact is that the petitioner/accused was in a remote village in Nellur in Andhra Pradesh for his treatment and to rebut the evidence let in by the complainant the witnesses cited by him in the witness schedule are necessary to be examined. The learned Counsel pointed out that the witnesses cited in the list namely 1 and 2 are necessary to prove that the petitioner/accused was in Nellur taking treatment from a private medical practitioner.