IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2080 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.1049/2003 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ SUNIL KUMAR N.S., S/O.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, ANIKKATT VEEDU, POOVARATHI P.O., PALA. BY ADV. MR.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PULIYILAPPARA DESOM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 2080 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 29th day of June,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.1049/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Chalakkudy. Petitioner had filed an application to send the dishonoured cheque to an expert which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Petitioner filed Crl.M.C.551/2009 challenging that order. Under Annexure I order, this court found that interim orders passed by a Magistrate during trial are to be challenged along with the final order and ordinarily extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked. This court found that order of the learned Magistrate rejecting the prayer to send the cheque to an expert does not warrant interference in exercise of the powers under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and petitioner is entitled to challenge that order, if necessary, along with the final order to be passed in C.C.1049/2003. Thereafter when petitioner made a further submission that petitioner wanted the bank Crl.M.C.2080/2009 2 guarantee to be examined it was observed that if such request is made it is to be considered by the Magistrate and appropriate decision be taken. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction to the Magistrate to summon the Manager and record his evidence contending that when summons was taken to the Manager he sent a report to the court to the effect that the account opening form is not available as it was subsequently destroyed. A direction was sought to the Magistrate to summon the Manager which was not allowed. 2. Petitioner has not produced any order whereunder the Magistrate has refused to issue summons to the Manager so as to interfere in exercise of the powers under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. If the case of the petitioner is that he was not permitted to examine the bank manager, petitioner is entitled to challenge the same along with the final order as stated in Annexure I order. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006