IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 818 of 2009() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 4222/07 IN CC.2043/2002 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ------------------------------- K.N.MOHAMMED JIFFREY K.N.HOUSE, KOTTIKULAM, BAKEL.PO KASARAGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REP.BY ITS STANDING COUNSEL,CRIME NO.11 (S) 2001 CBISPE, COCHIN. ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 818 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009. O R D E R This is an application filed by the petitioner to quash the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam in Crl.M.P.No.4222/07 in C.C.2043/02. The challenge is with respect to the examination of CW1, Mr.B.M. Jamal as a witness for the prosecution. The challenge is on the basis that Sri. B.M. Jamal was an advocate from whom the petitioner has sought legal advice on an earlier point of time and the allegation is that by examining him as CW1 the prosecution is trying to extract the privileged communications between the lawyer and the client. If there is an extraction of the privileged communication between the lawyer and the client law does not permit it. 2. Now the other question is only on facts. I had called for the chief-examination conducted in this case by the Court below. It runs to about six pages which would indicate that the question put to him is to the effect that the accused Crl.M.C. 818 OF 2009 -:2:- is a neighbour of the witness and he has settled down in SriLanka and has come back to the country after 1980. Then the question has been put to the parents of the said person and they are also described as citizens of SriLanka. Then questions had been put with respect to the passport and the witness had stated that the persons mentioned in the two passports are of the accused. Then questions are put with respect to the Visa and the application and the extension of the same. So these are all only questions with respect to the relevant documents that are available before the Court. The trend of the questions appears to be, first identifying person and the action taken on certain materials such as passports and Visa. This cannot be said to a privileged communication as contemplated under the provisions of the Evidence Act. If any confidential information which the client has given to the lawyer is sought to be brought in, then certainly it has to be prevented. A reading of the chief-examination would show that nothing of that sort has been done. Crl.M.C. 818 OF 2009 -:3:- 3. Then, so far as the cross-examination is concerned it is to be conducted by the counsel for the accused and it is certain that he would not put any questions in that regard. If such a question is put then the accused has to blame himself for the same. So on an analysis of the materials I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate has only acted within the permissible limits of law and therefore the order does not call for any interference. Therefore this Crl.M.C is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-