IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP(CRL.).NO. 1910 OF 2011(Q) -------------------------------------------- CMP.396/2010 OF J.M.F.C.-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, O/O. PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. D.S.JUSTIN RAJ, JINI BHAVAN, PARASUVAIKAL, NEYYATTINKARA P.O., NOW WORKING AS SENIOR T.O.A. (GR-II), O/O SDE, PARUTHIPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SIVAPRASAD P.PILLAI, DET, VENJARAMMOODU, NOW WORKING AS AGM(MARKETING), PGMT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JEEJA NIRMAL, DET VENJARAMOOD, VENJARAMOOD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI V. MANU THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT B1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAGE OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER SHOWING 22/11/2008. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE MAGISTRATE. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT DATED 4.6.2011. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 4.6.2011. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.6.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(Crl.) No.1910 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, Principal General Manager of BSNL, Thiruvananthapuram was directed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram to produce certain documents in connection with a case filed by the first respondent against respondents 2 and 3 for offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On request of the first respondent learned Magistrate issued summons to the petitioner to produce attendance register for the relevant period. It appears that learned Magistrate issued warrant to the petitioner for non-compliance with the said order. According to the petitioner, the Divisional Engineer who is in custody of the document filed affidavit stating that the said document is missing. Learned Magistrate on 04.06.2011 ordered petitioner to be present before him on 18.06.2011. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel submitted that being a Senior Officer learned Magistrate ought not have summoned the petitioner. O.P(Crl.) No.1910 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. Admittedly there was a direction to the petitioner to produce the document. His subordinate has filed an affidavit stating that the document summoned is missing. According to the petitioner, the person in custody of the document has filed the affidavit. Learned Magistrate directed petitioner to be present before him on 18.06.2011. It is also seen that warrant issued to the petitioner was recalled subject to the condition of petitioner appearing before the learned Magistrate. It is open to the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate on the day specified and file affidavit stating whatever he has to say in connection with the document directed to be produced by him. I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order. But I direct learned Magistrate to consider the affidavit that may be filed by the petitioner or the affidavit that is already filed by the person who claimed to be in custody of the document and pass appropriate orders in that regard. Writ Petition is closed with the above observation. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv