IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3041 of 2007() ------------------------------ CC.244/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYOLI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED ----------------------------- AMMED ADIKKOOL, S/O.ABDULLA, KEEZHAL HOUSE, VATAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAYYOLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl. R.P. No. 3041 OF 2007 A ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner is the 2nd accused. He, along with the co-accused, faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 408 IPC. The prosecution evidence has been closed. The 313 examination is over. The stage on defence evidence was also over. At that stage, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order under which the learned Magistrate, invoking his powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C., has directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kozhikode to produce Form-5A return and the list attached thereto, which show the names of persons responsible for the management of Kottakkal Islamic Accademy English High School of which the petitioners are alleged to be office bearers. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the invocation of the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is most unjustified at the present stage as the accused had Crl.R.P.No.3041/07 : 2 : formulated their defence taking advantage of the non- production of Form-5A return by the prosecution. Invocation of the powers, to ensure production of the said documents works out prejudice to the petitioner and the co-accused, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Production of evidence in support of specific allegations already raised cannot be said to constitute any prejudice of which complaint can be raised legally. In the instant case, the input which the learned Magistrate has called for is vital and crucial for the ascertainment of truth. Courts are not to be mere spectators of the events that go on before them and they have a duty to take apart in the process of ascertainment of truth. I am satisfied that the court below had committed no error warranting revisional interference by issuing the impugned directions. 4. I am not going into the question whether the revision petition is maintainable the impugned order being allegedly an interim order. I am satisfied, even if the same is Crl.R.P.No.3041/07 : 3 : reckoned as a revisable order, that the same does not warrant interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case such document is produced by the witness summoned, the petitioner may be granted an opportunity to adduce further evidence on his side also. Needless to say the petitioner shall be entitled for such an opportunity even without this court specifying the same. The petitioner's right to pray for examination of the defence evidence or recall prosecution witnesses will have to be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits and appropriate orders shall be passed. 6. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks