IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2468 of 2010() --------------------------------- CC.526/2007 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT (EO), ERNAKULAM ............................................................................................................................................ PETITIONER / ACCUSED : ------------------------------------ MINI ABRAHAM, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. ABRAHAM, CHOOREPARAMBIL HOUSE, BALAN MENON ROAD, KALOOR (PO), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682017. BY ADV. SRI. SHAJI CHIRAYATH RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.66,ARCOT ROAD, KODAMBAKKAM CHENNAI-600 002, REPRESENTED BY P/A.HOLDER, RANJITH MANALODI KUNI, AGED 28, S/O.T.T.BALAN, LEGAL ASST. SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE COMPANY (P) LTD,SHERINA BLDG JOS JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682016. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTRIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA R1 BY ADV. SRI. K.S. BABU SMT.N.SUDHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2468 OF 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ Petitioner, the accused in C.C.No.526/2007 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences) Ernakulam, filed C.M.P. No.106/2010 to summon the signatory to the complaint for the purpose of cross-examination, contending that it is that Power of Attorney Holder, who filed the proof affidavit in the case and therefore, petitioner is entitled to cross-examine him. By Annexure-A4 order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order contending that when the signatory to the complaint had filed the proof affidavit, petitioner is entitled to cross-examine him. A report was called for from the Additional Chief Magistrate whether M.Rajith Manalodi Kuni, who was sought to be summoned for cross-examination, has filed the proof affidavit in the case and, if so, what is the legal objection to summon him. The learned Magistrate submitted a report to the effect that the proof affidavit in the case was not filed by Rajith Manalodi Kuni Crl.M.C.No.2468/2010 2 sought to be summoned, but by Lohidhakshan who was examined as PW1 and PW1 was subsequently substituted as the power of attorney holder for the complainant and the witness sought to be summoned was the original power of attorney and he had only filed an affidavit at the pre-cognizance stage. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not disputed the fact that proof affidavit was not filed by the witness, who was sought to be cross examined by the petitioner and instead proof affidavit was that of PW1 who has already been cross-examined. In such circumstances, learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in dismissing the petition. If petitioner wants examine the said witness, he is at liberty to examine the witness at the defence evidence stage as his witness. Petition is dismissed. (M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE) ps/06/09