IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 599 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.1001/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHALAKUDY PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT ----------------------- TENSON, S/O. M.K.ANTONY, MALIKKAL KOONAN HOUSE, PUTHENCHIRA DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED -------------------- 1. K.K.DAVIS, S/O. KURIYAPPAN, KANJIRAKKADAN HOUSE, KARUNAVANNUR DESOM, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. No. 599 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 14-02-2008 ORDER Petitioner who is the complainant in C.C. 1001 of 2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Chalakkudy in a prosecution under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in respect of a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, filed a petition before the Magistrate for directing the Manager of the drawee bank namely, Irinjalakkuda branch of the Central Bank of India to produce certain documents pertaining to the S.B. Account No. 9444 allegedly maintained by the accused in the Bank. Even though the said petition was allowed, the Manager of the Bank did not appear before the court in response to the summons nor did he produce the documents before court. Instead, the Manager sent a letter to the Magistrate informing that the accused in the case namely K.K. Davis, S/o. Kuriyappan, does not maintain a savings bank account with the bank. Thereupon the Magistrate was about to close the petition. When the petitioner claims to have filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling the Manager of the Bank and examine him Crl.M.C. No. 599 of 2008 -:2:- and also for a direction to produce the documents mentioned in the earlier petition. The said petition was dismissed by the Magistrate on 27-12-2007 holding inter alia that the examination of the Manager is not necessary. It is the said order which is assailed in this Crl. M.C. 2. The dishonour of the cheque in question was not on the ground that the signature differs or that the signatory of the cheque does not have any account in the bank . It was only at the stage of evidence that the Magistrate was informed that the accused does not hold an account with the drawee bank. That information was conveyed to the Magistrate by means of a letter from the bank which according to the complainant came as a bolt from the blue. Hence the petitioner was justified in at least seeking a direction to summon the documents pertaining to the aforementioned account, particularly, since he has a contention in the petition filed by him that the bank as well as the accused were colluding with each other. 3. In as much as the petitioner in his petition was alleging collusion between the bank and the accused, the learned Magistrate could have at least summoned the Crl.M.C. No. 599 of 2008 -:3:- documents to ascertain himself whether the letter sent by the Manager was true or not . Hence this Crl.M.C is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the Magistrate again for summoning the records pertaining to the aforesaid saving bank account from the bank but without examining the Manager unless the Magistrate feels otherwise. In case, such a petition is filed, the learned Magistrate shall dispose of the same so as to ensure that the account in question is not maintained by the accused in the case. This Crl. M.C is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.