Kerala High Court Defers Verdict In Criminal Case As Magistrate Fails To Supply Copy Of Order Rejecting Accused's Plea To Reopen Evidence

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan passed the judgment directing the Magistrate to defer its judgment by 2 weeks and to issue a certified copy of the dismissal order within 3 days, if applied for.

The petitioner before the High Court was the accused person in a criminal case alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for alleged dishonour of cheques. Before the trial court, evidence produced by the complainant was marked and evidence was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner was examined by the Court and he admitted that the cheques were originally handed over to a third person and thereafter, it was obtained by the complainant, filled and presented.

The third person was examined as defence witness during which time printouts of certain chat screenshots were shown to him and admitted by him. Thereupon, after the case was posted for hearing, the petitioner preferred application to reopen evidence to mark the screenshots. This was not considered and the petitioner approached the High Court in O.P. (Crl) No. 539 of 2025. There was a direction to consider the application and in compliance of the same, it was heard and dismissed. The Magistrate then posted the case on the very next day for judgment. Though the petitioner applied for certified copy, it was not issued. Aggrieved, the petitioner came before the High Court again.

It observed:

“When the petitioner filed an application and there was a delay in passing orders on it, the petitioner approached this Court, and this Court directed that the said application be disposed of immediately. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken such haste to dispose of the main case itself by dismissing the petition yesterday and posting the case for judgment today. This practice is not proper. Heaven will not fall down if the pronouncement of the final verdict is made after serving a copy of the order passed in Ext. P2.”

The High Court disposed of the matter without issuing notice to the respondent and with a direction to the Magistrate to defer the pronunciation of judgment.

Case No: OP (Crl.) No. 609 of 2025

Case Title: Prasanth Andrews v. Ayyappan Pillai

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 558

Counsel for the petitioner: Franklin Arackal, Shyla Shaffeq, I.J. Augustine, M.B. Soori

Click to Read/Download Judgment