IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2336 of 2008() ------------------------- CRL.M.P.6838 OF 2005 IN C.C.NO.170/01 OF C.J.M, THRISSUR PETITIONER: ------------ PREM BHOOSHAN, S/O. MADHAVAN ARAYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM, VALAPPAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERA;A ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2336 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the 1st accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 420 I.P.C. Cognizance has already been taken. The matter has reached the stage of trial. The trial is scheduled to commence on 23.06.08 before the learned C.J.M, Trichur. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he had forged a bank guarantee which was furnished by him to the K.S.E.B. According to the petitioner it was not a forged or bogus bank guarantee. While the bank guarantee was in the possession of the K.S.E.B, it had been renewed twice. It was only on the third occasion that a contention was raised that it is a bogus bank guarantee. The petitioner wants to prove this fact. According to the petitioner, some of the crucial documents which would enable him to prove this fact have been taken away by the Investigating Officer from his possession as per a seizure mahazar, copy of which is produced as Annexure-AII. The petitioner wanted some of the documents referred to in Annexure-AII, which has not been produced before the court by Crl.M.C. No.2336 of 2008 2 the Investigating Officer, to be made available before court to facilitate a proper and effective cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. This prayer was refused by the learned Magistrate by Annexure-AIV order. The stand taken by the learned Magistrate is that the accused can summon the documents only at the defence stage. There is also a reason shown that “the documents to be produced are not clearly mentioned in the petition”. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes it clear that it is the entire file seized as per Annexure-AII seizure mahazar that he wants the prosecution to place before court. This is not defence evidence, but is only seeking the aid of court to conduct a proper cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to bring these documents into evidence as the same have been seized by them in the course of investigation. 3. The order of the learned Magistrate was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge in revision. The learned Sessions Judge, though he opined that “there was no impediment at all on the part of the learned Magistrate in ordering production of documents applied for”, took the view that the order being an Crl.M.C. No.2336 of 2008 3 interlocutory order is not amenable to revisional interference in view of the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. It is accordingly that the petitioner has now come to this Court with this grievance. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the prayer of the petitioner for production of the documents seized under Annexure-AII is perfectly justified. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that the impugned order does warrant interference. 5. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Magistrate shall direct the Investigating Officer to ensure production of the files seized under Annexure-AII seizure mahazar dated 18.06.94 before the court and shall permit the petitioner to make use of of the contents of such files for the cross examination of prosecution witnesses. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-