IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 1491 of 2007() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/05/2007 IN CMP.258/2007 IN ST.242/2005 of JFCM-VIII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ CHANDRAN KUTTY, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, P.C.NO.39/1258, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. G.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 65 YEARS,T.C.49/338, PARAPPASSERI VEEDU, KALLIPPAMKULAM MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 1491of 2007 ========================== Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who is the accused in S.T. No. 242/2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-VIII, Thiruvananthapuram, challenges Annexure-III order dated 02.05.2007 passed by the Magistrate dismissing C.M.P.No. 258/2007 filed by the petitioner to summon the Sub Treasury Officer, Vizhinjam to show that the stamp paper on which Ext.D2 alleged agreement is written was purchased from a vendor attached to that particular Sub Treasury. 2. According to the petitioner, Ext.D2 is the only transaction entered into between the petitioner and the complainant and the original of the said transaction is with the complainant and the petitioner is having only a photo copy of the same. 3. All that, the petitioner seeks to prove through the Treasury Officer is that a stamp paper was purchased in the name of the petitioner/accused on the relevant date. Even if it is CRL. M.C. NO. 1491/2007 : 2 : to be assumed that a stamp paper was purchased in the name of the accused, that does not advance his defence that Ext.D2 agreement was entered into between him and the complainant and the original of the said agreement is with the complainant. That is a matter which has to be proved by the other independent evidence. Hence, I fully endorse the conclusion which the Magistrate has made in Annexure -III order. This Crl. M.C. is accordingly dismissed. This will not preclude the petitioner from attempting to prove the alleged agreement by other independent evidence unless the Magistrate is convinced that the attempt of the petitioner is to protract the proceedings further. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C. NO. 1491/2007 : 3 :