IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3855 of 2009() --------------------------------- CC.230/2006 OF ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COUORT, THALASSERY --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- T.P.PAVITHRAN, S/O.DAMODARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, MEMBER, KOOTHUPARAMBA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, MOORIYAD P.O., KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED/STATE: ------------------------------------------------- 1. R.K.RAGHAVAN, S/O.ANDY, AGED 50 YEARS, PACHAPOIKA P.O., PANUNDA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.3855 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 30th November 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the complainant in C.C.230/2006 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's court, Thalassery. Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.3139/2008 under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Annexure-II) to examine further Cws.1 and 3 to mark the documents produced. Along with the petition eight documents were also produced. By Annexur-VII order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition finding that for a just decision of the case documents are not necessary and witnesses are not to be examined further. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that by Annexure-VI order this court has earlier quashed the order dismissing the complaint and directed the Crmc 3855/09 2 Magistrate to re-consider the question whether documents are necessary for a just decision of the case and in spite of the direction, petition was dismissed by a cryptic order without considering the relevancy of the documents. Learned counsel argued that relevancy of the documents could only be disclosed to the court, when the witnesses are examined and therefore, learned Magistrate should have allowed the application. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Annexure-II petition including the affidavit filed in support of the application and Annexure-VII order, I find no reason to interfere. When a petition is filed under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is for the petitioner to satisfy the Magistrate that each of the documents produced is relevant and necessary to prove the particular aspect of the case. Annexure-II affidavit does not disclose in what way the documents are relevant. Except an omnibus allegation in the affidavit that in spite of search the documents could not be produced earlier and they were traced out later and they are relevant to prove the case, the affidavit does not disclose how the documents are relevant and why the documents are to be admitted in Crmc 3855/09 3 evidence and for what witness is to be re-called. When petitioner does not disclose these mandatory aspects, learned Magistrate cannot be found fault for not exercising the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure. To invoke the power under Section 311, learned Magistrate is to be satisfied that for a “just decision of the case“ it is necessary. When it is not disclosed in Annexure-II petition I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-VII order. Petitioner is at liberty to challenge Annexure-VII order along with the final order. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.