IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 215 of 2011() ----------------------------- ST.48/2009 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED ------------------------------------ T.S.RAVINDRAN, THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AZHEEKAL P.O., VYPIN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-31. 2. M/S.JANATHA TRADING CORPORATION, MARKET ROAD, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, P.Y.JOHNSON, PALATTY HOUSE, THURAVOOR P.O., ANGAMALY - 683 586. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, ALONG WITH CRMC. NO.217/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos.215 & 217 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011. ORDER In both these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases petitioner is the same person though respondent No.2/complainant are different. But, both relate to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”) based on the dishonour of cheques allegedly issued by petitioner in favour of respondent No.2 in these cases. It is not disputed that evidence of respondent No.2 in the cases (S.T.Nos.48 of 2009 and 46 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Aluva respectively) was over and the case was posted for defence evidence. Petitioner submitted witness list citing some of the officials of the Sales Tax and Income Tax Departments on his side. Petitioner also filed petitions in both the cases to direct respondent No.2 to produce certain documents which was allowed and accordingly respondent No.2 produced certain documents. Petitioner was not satisfied with those documents and filed petitions in both cases complaining that documents produced by respondent No.2 are not complete and seeking a direction to the officials of Sales Tax and Income Tax Departments to produce the relevant documents. It is the grievance of petitioner that on 18.01.2011 learned Magistrate closed evidence of petitioner and posted the case for hearing. Those orders are under challenge in these proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that no summons Crl.MC Nos.215 & 217/2011 2 has been issued to the witnesses mentioned in the defence witness schedule and that documents requested for in the petitions filed by petitioner are necessary to prove the case. It is without disposing of the petitions (to direct the officials to produce documents) that learned Magistrate on 18.01.2011 closed evidence of petitioner and posted the cases for hearing. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that whatever document was required by the petitioner in the petitions originally filed have been produced by respondent No.2 and that all the documents required by petitioner in the subsequent petitions are not required or relevant since the transaction was in the year 2006 and the evidence of respondent No.2 based on which documents are sought to be called for is that he has included the transaction in his accounts submitted to the Income Tax Authorities during the relevant assessment years. 3. It is not necessary for me to go into the question whether documents produced by respondent No.2 are complete and being merely photocopies could be admitted in evidence. It is also not necessary for me to decide in this proceeding whether all the documents wanted by petitioner are necessary or relevant for decision of the cases. Those matters are to be decided by the learned Magistrate. Fact remained that the petitions filed by the petitioner on 28.10.2010 requesting learned Magistrate to direct the departments concerned to produce documents have not been disposed of and it is while so, that on 18.01.2011 learned Magistrate ordered that evidence of petitioner is Crl.MC Nos.215 & 217/2011 3 closed. If the documents sought to be summons are relevant and required for a fair and proper decision of the cases and if those are of the nature that it could be summoned from the departments concerned, learned Magistrate has to consider petitions dated 28.10.2010 and pass appropriate orders taking into account the objection of respondent No.2 as well. Resultantly these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are allowed and order dated 18.01.2011 in S.T.Nos.46 of 2009 and 48 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Aluva are set aside. Learned Magistrate shall consider the petitions filed by petitioner and pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks