O R D E R

Petitioner is the accused in S.T No.80/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – IV, Kannur. After the evidence of the accused was closed, petitioner filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C seeking to examine the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Kannur as a witness for the defense after reopening the evidence. However, by the impugned order dated 20.09.2024, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application. Petitioner challenges the aforesaid order.

2. I have heard Sri. Abdul Raoof Pallipath, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. C.N. Prabhakaran, the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Petitioner is the accused in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. She is alleged to have been a subscriber of a chitty, and after availing the chit payment, there was default in repayment, and therefore, they were called upon to pay the amount. The accused is alleged to have issued a cheque for Rs.35,32,200/- in satisfaction of the amounts due to the complainant, which when presented for encashment, returned dishonored. The complaint was filed after complying with the statutory requirement. After the evidence of both sides were completed, the accused filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to reopen the evidence for examining the Chits Registrar for the purpose of proving that the chitty was not registered. The learned Magistrate observed that, the question regarding the registration of the chitty does not arise and hence, examining the Chits Registrar was not essential.

4. In Priyamvada K. v. M. Rahu in A.N. Nadarajan v. K.G. Nadarajan and Another [1999(2) KLT 512], it was observed that, merely because a chit was conducted without permission, that shall not be a reason to hold that the debt was not legally enforceable. It was also observed that the chit conducted in violation of the Kerala Chitties Act would not render the transaction illegal or against public policy and therefore, prosecution on the basis of a cheque in discharge of the said debt would not become illegal.

5. The learned Magistrate relied upon the above two decisions, to come to the conclusion that the petition filed by the accused is devoid of any merit and was intended only to protract the matter. It is also noticed from the impugned order that petitioner had filed a similar petition earlier, which was also dismissed.

In view of the above mentioned legal position, I do not find any perversity in the impugned order requiring interference by this Court.

Accordingly, this Crl. M.C is dismissed.