IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 3822 of 2007() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/12/2007 IN IN CC.101/2005 IN CMP.8012/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- ABDUL SALAM, PUNNODE KUNNUMPURATH VEEDU, 10TH STONE, PERUMALA, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------- 1. M.BASHEER, ALIF HOUSE, MARUTHINAKAM, CHEKKAKONAM P.O., NEDUMANGAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. No. 3822 of 2007 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 01-01-2008 ORDER In this petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C.No. 101 of 2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M.II, Nedumangad, in a prosecution for an offence punishable under Sec. 420 I.P.C. on a private complaint, challenges Annexure - F order dated 1-12-2007 passed by the Magistrate in C.M.P. No. 8012 of 2007 as per which the complainant sought the examination of the Treasury Officer who is the controlling officer in respect of the account in question. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submission before me in support of this petition:- The Junior Superintendent of the Treasury in question was already examined as a witness and he had already given evidence to the effect that there is an account in the name of the accused. I f so, there was no necessity to examine the Treasury Officer. In the petition filed for examining the Treasury Officer, absolutely no reason has been stated as to why the Treasury officer is to be examined. The court below also did not give the petitioner an opportunity of being Crl.M.C. No. 3822 of 2007 -:2:- heard before allowing the petition. The petitioner is greatly prejudiced on account of the course adopted by the court below. 3. Annexure - F order indicates that the court was satisfied that the Treasury Officer is a witness who is to be examined in the case. That is a satisfaction which has been duly arrived at by the court below under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is true that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to file a written objection to the petition. But then, his oral objection was heard by the learned Magistrate and when the Magistrate was satisfied that the Treasury Officer is to be examined in the case, I see no reason why the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate should be interfered with without anything more. This petition is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.