BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 17.02.2025 Pronounced on : 26.02.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1152 of 2024 and Crl.M.P(MD).No.12243 of 2024 Against C.C.No.48 of 2023

1.Sri Ambal Traders Rep through its Proprietor G.Suresh

17, Pandian Plaza, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

2.G.Suresh Authorised Signatory, Sri Ambal Traders, 17, Pandian Plaza, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District. .. Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused Vs.

R.Gurumoorthy .. Respondent/Respondent/Complainant Prayer : This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 B.N.S.S, to set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Arupukottai in Crl.M.P.No.543/2024 dated 04.10.2024 in C.C.No.48/2023 and allow this Revision petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.Kamesh.N For Respondent : Mr.T.Balakrishnan

ORDER

The Criminal Revision case is directed against the order passed in Crl.MP.No.543 of 2024 in CC.No.48 of 2023 dated 04.10.2024 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate Arrupukottai, dismissing the petition filed under Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC. against the petitioner/accused, for the offences under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is evident from the records that the case was taken cognizance on 13.03.2022 and after completion of complainant side evidence, the petitioners were questioned under Section 313 (b) of Cr.PC on 20.06.2023 and when the case was posted for the defence side evidence, the petitioner have filed an application to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination and the said petition came to be allowed on 13.07.2023 and accordingly P.W.1 was subjected to cross-examination on 11.08.2023 by the defendants.

3. It is further evident that the case was posted to 01.09.2023, 21.09.2023, 26.10.2023, 23.11.2023 and 28.11.2023 for defence side witness and since the petitioners have not adduced any evidence, defence evidence was ordered to be closed and the case stood posted for arguments on 06.01.2024 and at that time, the petitioners have moved an application under Section 311 Cr.PC for adducing defence side evidence and the said came to be allowed on 15.02.2024 on terms, then subsequently the case was adjourned to 23.02.2024, 29.02.2024, 04.04.2024, 09.05.2024 and 15.05.2024 for defence evidence and that since the petitioner have again not chosen to adduce any evidence, their side evidence ordered to be closed and when this case was posted for arguments. The petitioners have again filed an application in Crl.MP.No.389 of 2024 under Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for adducing defence evidence and the same came to be allowed on payment of cost, that subsequently P.W.1 was examined on 28.08.2024 and after closure of defence side evidence when the case was again posted for arguments, the petitioners have moved the present application to re-open the case, for the purpose of adducing additional evidence.

4. The main contention of the petitioners/accused is that during their cross-examination of D.W.1 it was suggested by the complainant side that one Chockalingam died in the year 2018 but the said Chockolingam had committed suicide on 30.06.2019 and before that a criminal case came to be registered against him in Cr.No.05/2019 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Tuticorin and that therefore, the file in Cr.No.05/2019 has to be sent for from the office of the District Crime Branch Tuticorin, that there existed Positive Pay System for the cheques of above five (5) Lakhs to avoid the cheque dishonour as per National Payment Corporation of India and the Cheque Truncation System and to show the same, Bank Manager of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Branch, Kottai Branch has to be summoned and, that the above evidence is vital to prove the defence or else, the petitioners will be put to loss and hardship.

5. The respondent-complainant has filed a cou