1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1471 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 P.Paulchamy ... Petitioner/Accused Vs. P.Ramamoorthy ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order passed in Returned Batta Memo, dated 20.10.2010 in Cr.M.P.No.1684 of 2010 in C.C.No.86 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Virudhunagar and directing the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Virudhunagar to accept the batta memo and proceed further. For Petitioner : M/s. P.Santhana Krishnan O R D E R This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the lower Court in refusing the batta memo from issuing by its order dated 20.10.2010. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. In view of the circumstances of the case that the matter relevant is in between the petitioner and the Court regarding the issuance of batta, no notice is necessarily to be issued to the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner has applied for sending for certain documents before the lower Court in Crl.M.P.No.1684 of 2010 in C.C.No.86 of 2006 and the said petition was ordered by the lower Court, on 12.04.2010. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner has paid batta and presented the batta memo in pursuance of the order passed by the said Court. But however, the lower Court has returned the batta by saying that the Bank people will keep the records only for a period of five years as per the RBI Act and the documents sought to be sent for are of the year 2002 and therefore, those documents would not be available in the Bank and accordingly, the batta memo has been returned. He would further submit that the said return of batta memo is rightly against the order passed by the said Court, on 12.04.2010, permitting the petitioner to send for the same documents. He would also submit that the lower Court has not mentioned any other reason, except the only reason in its order. He would also submit that the order passed by the lower Court is contradictory to the earlier order and therefore, the order may be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to take subpoena to the Bank people concerned for the production of the said documents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also perused the records and the typed set of papers. There was an order passed by the lower Court on 12.04.2010, ordering to send for four documents as described in the petition and those documents are of the year 2002 to till date. The order passed by the lower Court was based upon no objection given by the other side in an endorsement. The said order was sought to be executed by the petitioner by paying the batta for the production of four documents into Court. However, the lower Court has come to a conclusion that those documents are not available, since they are old, for more than five years and they would not be available, in view of the provisions of RBI Act. According to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Bank Manager, who was already examined, had admitted to the effect that those documents are relevant to the case and they are available in the Bank, even though they are more than five years old. In the said circumstances, the order passed by the lower Court refusing to issue batta memo, after finding certain reasons against its own order already passed on 12.04.2010 is not at all sustainable. The petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to see the result of the issuance of batta memo and the availability of the documents from the side of the Bank. The lower Court should not have passed such an order before getting any instruction from the Bank that those documents are not available. Therefore, I have no hesitation to set aside the order passed by the lower Court on 20.10.2010, in the return order passed on the process memo filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the lower Court is directed to issue the batta memo, on the representation to be made by the petitioner before the said Court, if otherwise in order. 6. The Registry is directed to return the original batta memo produced in this petition, after taking a xerox copy of the said document within a period of one week from the date of preparation of the copy of this order and the petitioner is directed to represent the said petition before the lower Court within a week from the date of receipt of the returned batta memo from this Court. With the aforesaid observations, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar. + 1 cc to Mr.P.Santhanakrishnan, Advocate, SR No.4620 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1471 of 2011 07.02.2011 akv RJ/9.2.11 (IT) 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/