IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4880 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/11/2010 IN MP 6004/2010 IN CC.1171/2004 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THRISSUR .................. PETITIONER / COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- BEST TRADING COMPANY, THRISSUR REP BY P. AJITH, S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR RESIDING AT PARANGODATH HOUSE, NETTISSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. JIJO PAUL RESPONDENTS / ACCUSED & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. P.P.SUKUTTY, PROPRIETOR SINCERE CEMENT TRADERS, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4880 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 14th December, 2010 O R D E R Annexure-G order was passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur in C.C.1171/2004, pursuant to Annexure-F order passed by this court in Crl.M.C.2409/2009, directing the Magistrate to consider whether the witnesses, shown in Annexure-C witness list, filed by the defence, are to be summoned after quashing the earlier order issuing summons, by Annexure-G order learned Magistrate recording that defence has taken steps by filing process memo in respect of witnesses 3 to 6 alone, directed to issue summons to witnesses 1 and 2 also. Petitioner challenged that order before this Court in Crl.M.C.264/2010 contending that Annexure-G order should have been passed to issue summons Crmc 4880/10 2 only to witnesses 3 to 6 alone. By Annexure-H order this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to move the Magistrate for correction of clerical or typographical error in that order, as claimed by the petitioner. Annexure-I petition was thereafter filed to correct the alleged clerical mistake. By Annexure-J order successor Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that Annexure-G order was passed after considering the question on merits and there is no clerical error. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-J order and Annexure-K proceedings dated 12/11/2010 issuing summons to the witnesses 1 to 6 shown in the witness list. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. Crmc 4880/10 3 3. Petitioner earlier contended before this Court in Crl.M.C.264/2010 that issue of summons to witnesses 1 and 2 was a clerical mistake as the order itself shows that steps were taken to issue summons to only witnesses 3 to 6. This Court by Annexure-H order held that if it is a clerical error as claimed by the petitioner, he has to move the Magistrate. Grievance of the petitioner is that even though he moved a petition, it was dismissed by Annexure-J order. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that even though witness list was filed, the accused sought to issue summons only to witnesses 3 to 6 and not to witnesses 1 and 2, as per Annexure-C witness list. Though as per the witness list witnesses 1 and 2 have to produce some documents and without showing the details Crmc 4880/10 4 of the documents they cannot be produced. Though by Annexure-G order, learned Magistrate issued summons to CWS.1 and 2 also, there is no direction in Annexure-G order to issue summons to the witnesses to produce any document. If documents are to be produced, the accused has to file a separate petition showing the details of the documents. If such an application is filed, learned Magistrate has to consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. If accused is not taking steps to issue summons to witnesses 1 and 2, pursuant to Annexure-G order, learned Magistrate need not examine them. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.