IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 4056 of 2009() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/11/2009 IN CMP.1999/2009 IN OS.224/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALA .................... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- MADANAMOHANAN NAIR, VENATTUMATTOM, ALANADU KARA, ALANADU.P.O, BHARANGANAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.BABY THOMAS, MR.J.PRAKASH C.VADAKKAN. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.D.VINCENT, MURIYADAN HOUSE, CHEVOOR.P.O, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO.4056 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 13th January 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the complainant in S.T.224/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pala. This petition is filed to quash Annexure-A order passed by the learned Magistrate allowing C.M.P.1999/2009 filed by first respondent, the accused. S.T.224/2006 was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After closing of the evidence, based on the evidence tendered by the petitioner as PW1, first respondent filed C.M.P.1999/2009 to direct the petitioner to produce the documents which according to the first respondent are available with the Crmc 4056/09 2 petitioner as admitted by him at the time of his examination as PW1. Learned Magistrate by Annexure-A order allowed that application. Argument of the learned counsel is that learned Magistrate should not have allowed that application. Though petitioner did not produce copy of C.M.P.1999/2009 or the objection filed by the petitioner to that application, copy of the petition as well as objection were made available by the learned counsel, at the time of arguments. Copy of the petition shows that petitioner has asserted, when examined as PW1, that he is maintaining the accounts and produced those records before the Sales Tax Officials and those records would reveal the details of sale of Teak and Manjium and the dishonoured cheque is in respect of the said transaction. Though petitioner objected to the Crmc 4056/09 3 petition filed by first respondent, in the objection filed by the petitioner there is no case that when he was examined, he did not admit the custody of those records. In such circumstances, learned Magistrate was justified in directing the petitioner to produce those documents. I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-A order. Petitioner is at liberty to challenge that order along with the final order, if it is against him. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.