IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3210 of 2008() ------------------------- C.C.NO.110 OF 2006 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.C.M-II, KOTTARAKKARA PETITIONER: PETITIONERS/COMPLAINANT & D.W.3. -------------------------------------------- 1. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM. 2. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (1) KERALA, LEKSHADEEP & MAHE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE ---------------------------------------- 1. RAMANKUTTY NAIR, PROPRIETOR, M/S. GANESH CASHEW CO. MEEYANOOR, KOTTARAKARA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.3210 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22 nd day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioners herein are the Enforcement Officer of Provident Fund Organisation of Kollam and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner(1) of Thiruvananthapuram having jurisdiction over Kerala, Lakshadeep & Mahe. C.C.No.110 of 2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Kottarakkara is a case in which the 1st respondent herein is the accused and the 1st petitioner herein is the prosecuting agency. At the stage of defence evidence, 1st respondent/accused filed Annexure C witness schedule for summoning five witnesses of which the 2nd petitioner herein is the 3rd witness namely the former Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1. The purpose for which the 2nd petitioner is sought to be examined is to prove that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II is subordinate to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I having his headquarters at Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The petitioner would contend that apart from the fact that these hierarchical subordination is an admitted fact , the Crl.M.C.No. 3210 of 2008 2 defence need not summon the 2nd petitioner to prove the above fact which can be elicited from any of the other defence witnesses. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate has mechanically issued summons to the defence witnesses including the 2nd petitioner herein. 4. This Crl.M.C is disposed of holding that the examination of 2nd petitioner shall be allowed only if it is found inevitable from the evidence on record that the facts sought to be proved through him have not come on record. Hence the learned Magistrate shall defer the examination of the 2nd petitioner herein namely Regional Provident Fund Commissioner -I, Thiruvananthapuram till the conclusion of the defence evidence. If as a matter of fact the aforesaid fact has already been elicited or can be elicited from the other witnesses, the learned Magistrate need not examine the 2nd petitioner as a defence witness. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj