IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 429 of 2008() ------------------------ CRRP.4/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER: REV.PETITIONER -------------------------- SUBASH K.BABY, POOTHUPPALLIL KALAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MIRANNA CENTRAL P.O. THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY SRI.K.N.KUMARASWAMY SARMA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S. BREEZE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl. M.C. NO. 429 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 01-02-2008 ORDER The petitioner who is the accused in C.C. 505 of 2004 on the file of the J.f.C.M. II, Pathanamthitta for an offence punishable under Sec. 325 I.P.C. challenges the order passed by the trial magistrate at the fag end of the trial, summoning the General Diary and also the Intimation Register kept in the Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital. 2. According to the petitioner when the material witnesses such as P.Ws 2, 3 4 and 8 did not support the prosecution and C.Ws 6,7,9 and 10 were given up by the prosecution, the order passed by the learned Magistrate for production of the General Diary and the Intimation Register were uncalled for. 3. All that the Magistrate has done is only to call for the General Diary and Accident Intimation Register. It is well within the powers of the trial Magistrate to call for the said documents to ascertain whether the General Diary contains the relevant entries and also to ascertain whether the medico legal cases were promptly intimated to the police from the hospital by the hospital authorities. The summoning of these two documents are evidently for Crl. M.C. NO. 429 of 2008 -:2:- ascertaining the truth and it cannot be characterised as the court filling up the lacuna in the prosecution evidence. The Sessions Judge before whom the petitioner challenged the trial Courts' order by filing a revision, was also not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Magistrate. I see no reason to interfere with the order of the revisional court. This Crl. M.C. is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.