IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1164 of 2010() ------------------------ CRRP.34/2009 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CMP.1362/2009 OF JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II (MOBILE), KOTTAYAM ............... PETITIONER / RESPONDENT- ACCUSED : --------------------------------------------------------- VARGHESE PAUL, MANOHAR HILLS, ERAYIKADAVU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENT & STATE : ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. HDFC BANK LIMITED, BAKER HILL, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (LEGAL) MR.K.S.ANILKUMAR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2010, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 1165 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. ------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.1164 & 1165 of 2010 ------------------------------- COMMON ORDER Petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the defacto complainant in S.T.Nos.1948/2008 and 1182/2009 on the file of Judicial first Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kottayam. First respondent filed Crl.R.P.Nos.34/2009 and 35/2009 before Sessions Court, Kottayam challenging Annexure-A3 orders passed by the Magistrate, whereunder, petitions filed by the first respondent to substitute petitioner, in the place of the original complainant Lord Krishna Bank, was dismissed. By Annexure-A4 common order, learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revisions after setting aside Annexure-A3 orders. These petitions are filed by the accused challenging Annexure-A4 order contending that learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have interfered with Annexure-A3 orders. CRMC 1164&1165/10 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The complaints alleging that petitioner committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act were filed before the learned Magistrate by Lord Krishna Bank. First respondent subsequently filed C.M.P.Nos.1338/2009 and 1362/2009 to substitute the first respondent Bank as the complainant in the place of original complainant Lord Krishna Bank contending that Lord Krishna Bank, subsequent to the filing of the complaints, amalgamated with Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd. and later, Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd. got amalgamated with first respondent HDFC Bank Ltd. and therefore, first respondent is to be substituted as the complainant. Though learned Magistrate dismissed the petitions, learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the petitions and permitted first respondent to be substituted in the CRMC 1164&1165/10 3 place of the original complainant Lord Krishna Bank. 4. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that no material is produced to prove that there was an amalgamation of Lord Krishna Bank with Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd. and though amalgamation was allowed by order dated 27.8.2007, Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd. did not approach the learned Magistrate to get itself replaced as the complainant and only first respondent later filed petitions contending that as Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd. was amalgamated, first respondent Bank is to be substituted as the complainant. The specific case of the first respondent is that as per order of Reserve Bank of India dated 27.8.2007, Lord Krishna Bank got amalgamated with Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd. and later with effect from 1.4.2008, as per the Scheme of Reserve Bank of India, Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd. amalgamated with first respondent Bank and CRMC 1164&1165/10 4 therefore, first respondent Bank is to be substituted in the place of Lord Krishna bank. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that materials establishing the amalgamation were not produced before the learned Magistrate. I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-A4 order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, permitting first respondent to be substituted as the complainant, as the question of amalgamation is a matter to be proved at the time of trial. Granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all the contentions raised herein at the time of trial, these petitions are disposed. 22nd September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv