IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 5058 of 2010() ------------------------------------ (CRL.M.P.NO.1090/2010 AND 1091/2010 IN C.C.NO. 94/2009 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHENGANNUR) .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------- SUNU SHIJI, D/O.GEORGE NOW RESIDING AT CHIRATHARA PUTHEN BUNGLOW ALA SOUTH MURI, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.HARIHARAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S. SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE CO. (P) LIMITED, NO.66, ARCOT ROAD KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER ATTORNEY HODLER, PROMOD.M, MARUTHATHRUTHIL HOUSE, EZHIMATTOM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN 686 001. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.5058 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of March, 2011 ORDER Though second respondent is served, there is no response. 2. Petitioner challenges order dated December 14, 2010 on Crl.M.P.Nos.1090 and 1091 of 2010 in C.C.No.94 of 2009 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Chengannur. The applications were dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide common order dated December 14, 2010. 3. In Crl.M.P.No.1091 of 2010 petitioner requested to direct the second respondent to produce original chitty thalavariyola and certain other documents including the ledger and balance sheet. Crl.M.P.No.1090 of 2010 is to reopen evidence and recall PW1. Learned Magistrate has observed that all the relevant documents have been produced and that even after the case was posted for questioning petitioner under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”). There was request to reopen the case twice, it was allowed, PW1 was recalled and further examined and again questioned under Sec.313 of the Code when the present petitions were filed. Crl.M.C.No.5058 of 2010 -: 2 :- 4. Learned counsel submitted that what is required to be produced is only the original chitty thalavariyola which according to the learned counsel is necessary to prove the defence of petitioner. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. Having regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner, I am inclined to think that an opportunity must be given to the petitioner to get the original chitty thalavariyola if it is available with the second respondent. Resultantly this petition is allowed to the extent that learned Magistrate is directed to call for original chitty thalavariyola from the second respondent. If the original chitty thalavariyola is not available with the second respondent, he can file an affidavit in the trial court to that effect. In case the original chitty thalavariyola is available and produced before learned Magistrate it is open to the petitioner to request learned Magistrate to recall PW1 for further examination if such a course is found necessary. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-