S RATHINASAMY Vs. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ERODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent herein has filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since the cheque given by the petitioner was dishonoured, the case is pending before judicial Magistrate, No. II, Erode, Periyar District in C. C. No. 23/95. THE petitioner has filed C. M. P. 2105/95 seeking permission to examine two more witnesses and the Handwriting Expert. THE trial Magistrate by his order dated 25. 5. 95 has dismissed the petition on the ground that there is no bona fide on filing the petition and the intention of the petitioner is only to dela and protract the proceedings. THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition to call for the records from the Judicial Magistrate, No. II, Erode and to quash the order in c. M. P. No. 2105/95 dated 25. 5. 95 in C. C. 23/95.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been deprived of his right to let in evidence and this would violate his fundamental right to have effective opportunity to prove his case. By rejecting the request of the petitioner to let in further evidence, his right of being beared is negatived and hence the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the fundamental right of the petitioner to let in evidence has been deprived by the order of the Magistrate, the petitioner is entitled to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the constitution of India and since the petitioner is poor and cannot met the expenses to go to Supreme Court, he has filed the present writ petition before this court.