IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1950 of 2008()
1. PREMA & ANOTHER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :17/06/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR , J.
==========================
Crl.R.P. No. 1950 of 2008
==========================
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008.
ORDER
The revision petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.
No. 1007 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Irinjalakuda, challenge the order dated 02.05.2008 passed by the
Magistrate allowing C.M.P. No. 2959 of 2008 filed by the prosecution
under Section 311 Cr.P.C to summon the Post Master, Head Post
Office, Irinjalakuda and to require him to produce the documents
which would show that the 1st accused Prema was working as an agent
in the scheme of recurring deposit under the Postal Department during
the year 1999-2002.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
placing reliance upon the decision reported in Rajendra Prasad v.
Narcotic Cell [1999(2) KLT 779 (SC)] contended that the attempt of
the prosecution was to fill the lacuna and such an attempt should not
have been allowed by the Magistrate.
3. I cannot agree. The case of the prosecution is that while
working as an agent under the recurring deposit scheme in the Head
Post Office, Irinjalakuda during the period from 06.01.2001 to
13.10.2001, the 1st accused (1st revision petitioner) misappropriated a
CRL.R.P. NO. 1950/208 : 2:
sum of Rs.57350/- by not depositing the amount collected from the
depositors. The case of the prosecution right from the inception is that
the 1st revision petitioner was working as an agent under the recurring
deposit scheme in the Head Post Office, Irinjalakuda. No doubt, during
the investigation of the case, the officer in charge of the investigation
did not seize or produce documents to prove the above fact. But, the
said document being a basic document consistent with the case of the
prosecution right from the beginning, there is noting wrong in the
prosecutor filing the petition and the court allowing the same in
exercise of the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C for producing the
documents and for examining the Post Master. I am not inclined to
accept the contention that the prosecution was filling up lacuna in the
evidence. I see no ground to interfere.
This revision is accordingly dismissed.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
CRL.R.P. NO. 1950/208 : 3: