IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 264 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.1171/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- BEST TRADING COMPANY, THRISSUR, REP.BY P.AJITH, S/O. ACHUTHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PARANGODATH HOUSE, NETTISSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE ------------------------------ 1. P.P.SUKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, SINCERE CEMENT TRADERS, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M.KAMMAPPU SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.N.AJITH FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 264 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act initiated as C.C.No.1171/2004 before the J.F.C.M Court-I, Thrissur, challenges Annexure G order as per which the learned Magistrate has directed issuance of summons to all the six witnesses mentioned in Annexure C witness list filed by the defence. According to the petitioner, the defence wanted summons to be issued only to witness Nos.3 to 6 in Annexure C witness list whereas the Magistrate has ordered summons to all the witnesses which was not approved by this Court on an earlier occasion in Crl.M.C No.2409/09. 2. The operative portion of the earlier order passed by this Court in Crl.M.C No.2409/2009 shows that the Magistrate was directed to consider whether all the witnesses mentioned in Annexure C witness list are to be examined or not. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has passed the present Annexure G order dated 8.1.2010 directing issuance of summons to witness Nos. 1 to 6. According to the petitioner, Crl.M.C. No.264 of 2010 : 2 : the learned Magistrate intended issuance of summons only witness Nos. 3 to 6 and not to all the witnesses and that the operative portion of the order is a clerical mistake. If it is a clerical mistake, then Section 306 Cr.P.C does not stand in the way of the petitioner from moving the Magistrate for correcting the said mistake. Accordingly, reserving the right of the petitioner to move the Magistrate for correction of the clerical or typographical error in the Annexure G order, this Criminal M.C is dismissed. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb