CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

G.M. Haneef vs N. Majeed Haji and State

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 26 April 2011 · Citation: (2011) 04 KL CK 0092

HON’BLE JUDGES
Thomas P. Joseph, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 311, 313, 315 · Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) — Section 138
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M.C. No. 1251 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 349 words

Thomas P. Joseph, J.—Petitioner is accused in S.T. No. 2249 of 2008 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court-I, Kannur, for offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ''the Act''). Learned Magistrate had granted him permanent exemption from appearance. After questioning u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ''the Code'') was over, the case was posted on 11.1.2011 for defiance evidence. Counsel for Petitioner could not appear in Court on that day. The case was posted on 18.2.2011 for hearing. On 18.2.2011, Petitioner filed a petition u/s 315 of the Code to examine himself as a witness. It is submitted that the said petition was not entertained, since according to the learned Magistrate, a petition u/s 311 of the Code also is required to consider the petition u/s 315 of the Code. Accordingly, C.M.P. No. 677 of 2011 was filed u/s 311 of the Code. On 11.3.2011 on which day the case was posted, there was no sitting and hence the case was posted to 8.4.2011. On that day, Petitioner could not appear and hence, his counsel made a request for time. Learned Magistrate dismissed C.M.P. Nos. 676 and 677 of 2011 vide Annexure-IV and V, orders dated 8th April, 2011. The said orders are under challenge. Learned Counsel requested that Petitioner may be given an opportunity to examine himself as witness.

2.

Heard learned Counsel for Petitioner, first Respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3.

Having regard to the contentions raised by Petitioner with respect to the alleged execution of the cheque, I am inclined to give Petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence as prayed for in C.M.P. No. 676 of 2011.

Therefore, this Crl. M.C. is allowed in the following lines:

Annexures IV and V, orders dated 8th April, 2011 on C.M.P. Nos. 676 and 677 of 2011 (in ST. No. 2249 of 2008 of JFCMC-I, Kananur) are set aside and those petitions will stand allowed. Learned Magistrate shall post the case for examination of Petitioner as a witness as prayed for in C.M.P. No. 676 of 2011.