IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2422 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/12/2006 IN CMP 7822/2006 IN CC.1113/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ M. HARI, S/O. KUNHUNNI, SAHARA MANZIL, GROUND FLOOR, NEAR SAHARA SERVICE STATION, S.N.B. JUNCTION, SHORNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SHAJU MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, P.O. QUARTERS, B.P. ANGADI, TIRUR-2. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2422 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He has advanced a defence that his signed cheque leaf had been lost along with a bag in which the cheque leaf was kept. He had filed a complaint before the police. The police had recorded the same in the petition register at the Police Station. The petitioner wanted that fact to be brought to the notice of the court. He has filed an application to receive the said document. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 11/12/06 in C.M.P.No.7822/06 dismissed the application holding that it is only a photocopy of a copy of the document. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document is relevant and the learned Magistrate erred grossly Crl.M.C. No. 2422 of 2008 -: 2 :- in not taking note of the fact that what is produced is a certified copy of a document produced before court. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner may be given an opportunity to introduce the document in evidence at the defence stage. 2. I have gone through the impugned order. The learned Magistrate does not appear to have been cognizant to the fact that what is produced is a certified copy issued by a court. The petitioner's right to get the document produced in evidence cannot possibly be disputed. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the impugned order can be set aside and the learned Magistrate can be directed to consider the matter afresh. 3. Considering the nature of the relief which I propose to grant in favour of the petitioner, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondent/complainant in this petition. 4. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) The impugned order is set aside. (c) The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of C.M.P.No.7822/06 afresh after giving an opportunity to both the Crl.M.C. No. 2422 of 2008 -: 3 :- contestants to advance their arguments. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/