IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2802 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.169/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- NATARAJAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, VELAKAD HOUSE, NATTIKA BEACH DESOM, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O.SEKHARAN, THANDAYAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENTRAPPINNI EAST, CHENTRAPPINNI VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2802 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The signature in the cheque is admitted. There was no reply to the notice of demand. When the complainant took the witness stand, a case was set up that he is the director of a finance establishment and that the cheque was handed over as a signed blank cheque as security in the transaction between the accused and the said finance establishment. That cheque is being misutilised by the complainant, it was contended. The case has reached the stage of defence evidence. The accused wanted to examine three witnesses. He has filed a defence schedule. It is submitted at the Bar that the learned Magistrate had issued summons only to the third witness and the case stands posted for examination of the third witness to 25/7/2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that summons was not ordered to the two other witnesses. 2. Has a speaking order been passed by the learned Magistrate? What reason did the learned Magistrate have for not accepting the request for ordering summons to witnesses 1 Crl.M.C.No.2802/08 2 and 2? No satisfactory answers are available to these questions. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate has chosen to direct issue of summons only to the third witness and without any reasons summons has not been issued to the other two witnesses. 3. I need only mention that the petitioner can make a specific application under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C to request the learned Magistrate to issue summons to witnesses 1 and 2. If such an application is received, the learned Magistrate shall pass a speaking order under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C, if the learned Magistrate chooses to refuse to grant the said prayer. Needless to say that order can be challenged by the petitioner in accordance with law. 4. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed but with the above specific observation/direction. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.2802/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.2802/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008