AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.112 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First class Magistrate Court-II, Irinjalakkuda. Cognisance in the case was
taken on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. After closure of evidence in this case, the petitioner
filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C seeking to re-open the defence evidence. The request for reopening evidence was opposed by the
complainant on the ground that the attempt was to fill up the lacuna in the defence evidence. It is submitted that an earlier application filed by the
petitioner for re-opening defence evidence was allowed and the petitioner examined. The learned Magistrate found that, after completion of evidence,
the case was heard in part on 31.12.2019 and posted for further hearing on 06.01.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed CMP Nos.3 and 4 of 2020
under Section 311 and 315 Cr.P.C. The petitions were allowed and the evidence of the accused was re-opened. On 08.10.2020, the accused was
examined as DW1 and Exts.D1 and D2 marked. Thereafter, based on the submission of the petitioner's counsel, the defence evidence was closed and
the case posted for hearing. Again the matter was heard in part on 10.11.2020 and posted for further hearing. In the meantime the instant petition was
filed on 13.11.2020. Hence, the trial court upheld the contention of the complainant that the attempt is only to protract the proceedings and dismissed
the petition.
Despite the forceful contentions of Sri.P.K.Sajeev, learned Counsel for the petitioner, regarding the prejudice to which the petitioner will be put,
unless the evidence is re- opened, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. As rightly held by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner having
failed to avail the opportunity to examine all witnesses, even when the defence evidence was re-opened on an earlier occasion, the present petition for
the very same purpose, is an attempt to protract the case. The power under Section 311 cannot be exercised to serve such nefarious purposes.
In the result, the Crl.M.C is dismissed.