1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2188 of 2011 S.Aravind Subramanian ... Petitioner/Defacto complainant Vs State through The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Police Station Tirunelveli Tirunelveli District ... Respondent/Compplainant PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the learned II Additional District Munsif at Tirunelveli, to produce the document marked as B1 in O.S.No. 581 of 2007 which is pending on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court at Tirunelveli to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli in connection with the Crime No. 76 of 2009 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli. For Petitioner : Mr.AR.Jeyarhuthran For Respondent : Mr.L.Murugan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner/de-facto complainant seeking for a direction to be issued to the II Additional District Munsif at Tirunelveli, to produce the document marked as Exhibit B1 in O.S.No. 581 of 2007, which is pending on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court at Tirunelveli to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli in connection with the Crime No. 76 of 2009 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli. 2. Heard Mr.AR.Jeyarhuthran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is the de-facto complainant in the complaint given by him against one Siva Subramanian @ Siva Subbu and another, which was registered in Crime No. 76 of 2009 for the alleged offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, by the respondent police. He would further submit in his argument that the respondent took up the investigation and in the course of investigation, it found that the document involved in the commission of the offence was produced in O.S.No.581 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli and therefore, the respondent filed a Petition under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Section 91 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli and obtained a direction for the production of the said document from the learned II Additional District Munsif Court at Tirunelveli, on 11.10.2010. He would further submit that on receipt of the summon in pursuance of the said order, the II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, refused to send the document by stating that the said document is marked as Exhibit B-1 in O.S.No. 581 of 2007 and the case is in a part heard stage. He would also submit that the non-sending of the document as per the direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli by the learned II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, will result in gross failure of justice. He would further submit that the original document alone is necessary for the purpose of doing the investigation and the said Court, namely, the learned II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, can very well substitue the said document by a certified copy and the original could be sent on certain conditions to reproduce the same as and when required. He would further submit that the said Court did not send the document as required and therefore, suitable direction may be issued against the learned II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, as requested in the Petition. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that the document which is marked as Exhibit B-1 in O.S.No. 581 of 2007 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, is required for further investigation and suitable directions may be issued by this Court against the learned II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, to comply with the direction issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, for the purpose of continuing the investigation by the respondent. Therefore, he would request the Court to pass suitable orders. 5. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 6. The indisputed facts are that a suit has been filed in O.S.No. 581 of 2007 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, in which, the impugned document was produced as Exhibit B-1 and the said document was required by the investigators for the purpose of furthering the investigation. Therefore, the de-facto complainant filed a Petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, which is the jurisdictional Magistrate Court, under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., to send for the documents and accordingly, an order was passed in the said petition filed in Cr.M.P.No.-- of 2010 and summon was also issued and it has been represented by the learned II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, that Exhibit B-1, the document required by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, cannot be sent, since the case is in a part heard stage. Therefore, the document is not received by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court. As far as the sending for documents are concerned, the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, has to be complied with by the learned II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, so as to facilitate the investigation to be completed. There are procedures for retention of Exhibit B-1 by having substituted the same, with the certified xerox copy and to send Exhibit B-1 to the learned Judicial Magistrate Court. The Court which had sent for the document is always at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the obligation to return the document when the purpose is over and therefore, the said Court need not consider the absence of original document, when substituted certified xerox copy is available for pronouncement of judgment. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to issue a direction to the learned II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, to send the document (ie) Exhibit B-1 filed in O.S.No. 581 of 2007, as required in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, dated 11.10.2010, under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. The said document shall be sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate Court under an intimation to the party to the suit in O.S.No. 871 of 2007, who has produced the said document into the said Court. On receipt of the said document by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, the respondent police is entitled to get the document from the said Court for conducting the investigation and to return the said document before the learned Judicial Magistrate, after the purpose is over for restoring the same to the learned II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, in O.S.No. 581 of 2007. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this Petition is ordered. vsg Sd/- Assistant Registrar[P&A] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Police Station Tirunelveli Tirunelveli District 2. The II Additional District Munsif Court Tirunelveli 3. The Judicial Magistrate No.I Tirunelveli 4. 2 & 3 Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. 5. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai. +1 cc to Mr.AR.Jeyarhuthran, Advocate SR.No.9378. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2188 of 2011 Dated:22.02.2011 3P/7C RPB 09.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/