Kerala High Court
Yamuna vs The State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023/22ND POUSHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO.235 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2022 IN CMP NO.2830/2022 IN
ST NO.207/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PUNALUR
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN CMP:
YAMUNA L, AGED 68 YEARS, D/O.LAKSHMI,
ARUN NIVAS, NEDIYARA P.O., NETTAYAM, ERUR,
ANCHAL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691306.
BY ADVS.
R.SURAJ KUMAR
ANJANA R.S.
RESHMA K.RAJU
SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL
RESPONDENT/STATE/RESPONDENT IN CMP:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031.
2 RAJEEV, S/O.KUMARAN, KODUVILA VEED,
NEDIYARA P.O., NETTAYAM, ANCHAL VILLAGE,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691306.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.235 of 2023
2
O R D E R
Dated, this the 12th January, 2023
This is a petition filed under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the
petitioner, who is the petitioner in CMP
No.2830/2022 in S.T. No.207/2016 dated
21.10.2022 on the files of Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Punalur, where the accused
alleged to have committed offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner on admission.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that petitioner, who is the
complainant in the above case, had filed CMP
No.2830/2022 to recall and re-examine PW1 since
PW1 had given evidence during cross-examination
that her husband was present at the time of
transaction. But actually, the husband died
before the transaction. He also submitted that
Crl.M.C. No.235 of 2023
the learned counsel for the complainant/
petitioner, who conducted the above case, was
not present at the time of cross-examination
and, therefore, he failed to re-examine PW1 on
this point. In the said circumstances, PW1 is
liable to be recalled in order to re-examine so
as to clarify the anomaly in the evidence. It
is submitted further that though these facts
were pointed out before the learned Magistrate
Court, the learned Magistrate dismissed the
petition. Therefore, revisit of the order is
necessary to ensure the right of the
complainant in this matter.
4. The learned Magistrate appraised the
contention based on the Apex Court decision
reported in [(2013) 5 SCC 741] Natasha Singh v.
CBI (State). It is noticed that the learned
Magistrate failed to show the citation so as to
read and understand the judgment. However, the
principle that has been stated in the order was
Crl.M.C. No.235 of 2023
that petition filed by the petitioner with
intention to fill up the lacuna in evidence
could not be allowed.
5. It is relevant to note that the chief
examination and cross-examination of the
complainant was completed as early as on
19.09.2018 and the present petition has been
filed only on 26.09.2022 after four years and
the intend is nothing to fill up the lacuna in
evidence and to deny an admitted fact to the
effect that the husband of the complainant was
present at the time of transaction, on the
assertion that the husband of the complainant
died prior to the date of occurrence.
6. For the above reasons, the order
impugned does not require any interference.
Accordingly, this petition found to be
meritless and is dismissed.
7. It is shocking to note that when the
subordinate courts while referring the
Crl.M.C. No.235 of 2023
citations in the judgments/orders, there were
omissions without mentioning the name of the
parties of the case. Similarly, there were
omissions after citing the name of the parties
while mentioning the volume and page number of
the journal, where the said decision was
reported. Some times, it is noticed that
citations wrongly mentioning the volume and
page numbers of the journal were being quoted.
8. This creates difficulty to this Court to
locate and read the judgment to understand the
ratio therein. Therefore, there shall be a
direction to all subordinate courts to mention
the parties name as well as the volume and page
number of the citations specifically, while
referring the same in the judgments/orders in
future without fail, so that this Court could
easily locate and understand the ratio of the
said decision.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of
this order to all subordinate courts for strict
Crl.M.C. No.235 of 2023
compliance, within a period of ten days.
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.
ww
Crl.M.C. No.235 of 2023
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 235/2023
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID COMPLAINT NILL
IN ST NO.207/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1,
PUNALUR.
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID PROOF AFFIDAVIT
DATED 19/9/2018 IN ST NO.207/2016 ON THE
FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-1, PUNALUR.
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID DEPOSITION OF
THE PETITIONER HEREIN DURING CROSS
EXAMINATION DATED 19/9/2018.
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION DATED
15/03/2019.
ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW3
DATED 04/04/2019.
ANNEXURE6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID PETITION CMP NO.
2830/2022 IN ST NO.207/2016 ON THE FILE
OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-1, PUNALUR.
ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
1/10/2022 IN ST NO.207/2016 ON THE FILE
OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-1, PUNALUR.
ANNEXURE A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID MEDICAL
CERTIFICATE DATED 29/09/2022 ISSUED FROM
THE HOLLY CROSS HOSPITAL, KOLLAM.
ANNEXURE A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
21/10/2022 IN CMP NO.2830/2022 IN S.T.
NO.207/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, PUNALUR.
