IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2574 of 2011() ------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :- --------------------------------------- R. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAN, VELANGATTU KIZHAKKETHIL, MUTTOM SOUTH, THATTARAMBALAM, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT :- ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. GEORGE VARGHESE, EDASSERYPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAVUMBHAGOM, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 689 645. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt Crl.M.C.No.2574 OF 2011 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Annexure A :- Copy of the complaint in S.T.No.148/2007 filed by the 2nd respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla. Annexure B :- Copy of the petition dated 1/7/2011 filed by the petitioner under 311 of Cr.P.C. Annexure C :- Copy of the order dated 25/7/2011 in C.M.P.No.5944/2011 in S.T.No.148/07 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.2574 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of August 2011 O R D E R The 2nd respondent/complainant is absent. The request made by the petitioner/accused is to summon the RTO to cause production of certain documents and to give evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when PW1 was in the witness box, questions pertaining to the vehicle could not be put since the particulars of the vehicle could not be obtained by then. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that only because question was not put to PW1 during the cross examination with regard to that vehicle, the defence evidence may not be denied. The complainant is absent. It seems he has no objection in the petitioner causing summons to the RTO as mentioned above. As such this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The petitioner Crl.M.C. No.2574 of 2011 -: 2 :- will take steps within seven days from today before the court below to issue summons to the witnesses. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt