IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1950 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/05/2008 IN C.M.P.2959 /2008 IN CC.1007/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------ 1. PREMA, D/O. GOPALAN, MUKKULAM VEETTIL, PULLOOR DESOM, PULLOOR VILLAGE. 2. BABU @ AJAYAGHOSH, S/O. JANARDHANAN, MANAKKADON (V) PULLOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 1950 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008. ORDER The revision petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 1007 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda, challenge the order dated 02.05.2008 passed by the Magistrate allowing C.M.P. No. 2959 of 2008 filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C to summon the Post Master, Head Post Office, Irinjalakuda and to require him to produce the documents which would show that the 1st accused Prema was working as an agent in the scheme of recurring deposit under the Postal Department during the year 1999-2002. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner placing reliance upon the decision reported in Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell [1999(2) KLT 779 (SC)] contended that the attempt of the prosecution was to fill the lacuna and such an attempt should not have been allowed by the Magistrate. 3. I cannot agree. The case of the prosecution is that while working as an agent under the recurring deposit scheme in the Head Post Office, Irinjalakuda during the period from 06.01.2001 to 13.10.2001, the 1st accused (1st revision petitioner) misappropriated a CRL.R.P. NO. 1950/208 : 2: sum of Rs.57350/- by not depositing the amount collected from the depositors. The case of the prosecution right from the inception is that the 1st revision petitioner was working as an agent under the recurring deposit scheme in the Head Post Office, Irinjalakuda. No doubt, during the investigation of the case, the officer in charge of the investigation did not seize or produce documents to prove the above fact. But, the said document being a basic document consistent with the case of the prosecution right from the beginning, there is noting wrong in the prosecutor filing the petition and the court allowing the same in exercise of the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C for producing the documents and for examining the Post Master. I am not inclined to accept the contention that the prosecution was filling up lacuna in the evidence. I see no ground to interfere. This revision is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 1950/208 : 3: