Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5318
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
PROMPT CHITS & INVESTMENTS – Appellant
Versus
ANIL KUMAR G. – Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 724 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.REJI, SHRI.M.V.THAMBAN, SMT.THARA THAMBAN, SRI.B.BIPIN, SRI.ARUN BOSE, SMT.JEENA A.V., SHRI.ARJUN R.
A party's right to reopen evidence is vital for ensuring fair trial, especially when prior evidence may aid in clarifying crucial facts.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The case involves an allegation of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Facts of the Case: The petitioner filed a complaint alleging a cheque bounce. The respondent failed to appear after notice.
Findings of Court:
The court found grounds to interfere with the prior order, indicating a need for the reconsideration of evidence.
Issues: The core issue revolved around the right of the petitioner to recall witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the refusal to allow evidence reopening lacked substantial justification and inadvertently hindered fair trial rights.
Result: The Original Petition is allowed, and the impugned order stands set aside, directing a fresh reconsideration of the application.
Act Referred
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to earlier order regarding complainant's evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. accused's defense and need for evidence substantiation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's directive for reconsideration of evidence. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this Original Petition is to the order dated 21.10.2025 in CMP No.2597 of 2025 in S.T.No.2401/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha. The petitioner is the complainant. The petitioner filed the complaint alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 . Respondent is the accused. Notice was served on the respondent, but he failed to appear.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The complainant gave evidence as PW1. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined and Exts. D1 to D2 were marked. Thereafter, the case was referred to mediation. But the parties failed to arrived at a settlement.
4. At the time of defence evidence, the accused set up the defence that the cheque in question does not belong to him and the same was issued from the account of Sri. Anish Kumar. The petitioner/complainant filed an application seeking to reopen the evidence, recall DW1 and summon Sri.Anish Kumar.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by reopening the evidence permitting the petitioner to recall PW1, DW1 and examine Sri.Anish Kumar, will not cause any prejudice to the accused.
6. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner did not specify the purpose for which the witnesses were sought to be summoned and recalled. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads thus:-
“7. The petitioner herein has failed to specify the purpose for which the witnesses are sought to be summoned and recalled at this belated stage. Neither had the petitioner explained about the material facts or evidence which he seeks to elicit from these witnesses nor had specified as to how such evidence would be relevant for the proper adjudication of the case at hand. A perusal of the entire facts indicates that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunities for adducing evidence. Hence, filing of such vague petitions at the fag end can be considered only as a tool for filing up the lacunae in the case of the complainant.”
7. The petitioner has produced a copy of the application filed under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS ’) seeking to recall the witnesses. The petitioner has stated the reasons for recalling the witnesses.
8. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the impugned order requires interference.
In the result, the Original Petition is allowed. The order dated 21.10.2025 in CMP No.2597 of 2025 in S.T.No.2401/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha, stands set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 application afresh and pass orders in accordance with law.
Sd/-
