High Court Kerala High Court

Mini Abraham vs Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance … on 3 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Mini Abraham vs Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance … on 3 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2468 of 2010()


1. MINI ABRAHAM,AGED 40 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE COMPANY
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :03/09/2010

 O R D E R
                 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                    ---------------------------------
                   Crl.M.C.No.2468 OF 2010
                    ----------------------------------
          Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010

                              O R D E R

~~~~~~~

Petitioner, the accused in C.C.No.526/2007 on the file of

the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic

Offences) Ernakulam, filed C.M.P. No.106/2010 to summon the

signatory to the complaint for the purpose of cross-examination,

contending that it is that Power of Attorney Holder, who filed

the proof affidavit in the case and therefore, petitioner is

entitled to cross-examine him. By Annexure-A4 order, learned

Magistrate dismissed the petition. This petition is filed under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the

order contending that when the signatory to the complaint had

filed the proof affidavit, petitioner is entitled to cross-examine

him. A report was called for from the Additional Chief

Magistrate whether M.Rajith Manalodi Kuni, who was sought to

be summoned for cross-examination, has filed the proof affidavit

in the case and, if so, what is the legal objection to summon him.

The learned Magistrate submitted a report to the effect that the

proof affidavit in the case was not filed by Rajith Manalodi Kuni

Crl.M.C.No.2468/2010 2

sought to be summoned, but by Lohidhakshan who was examined

as PW1 and PW1 was subsequently substituted as the power of

attorney holder for the complainant and the witness sought to

be summoned was the original power of attorney and he had only

filed an affidavit at the pre-cognizance stage.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not

disputed the fact that proof affidavit was not filed by the witness,

who was sought to be cross examined by the petitioner and

instead proof affidavit was that of PW1 who has already been

cross-examined. In such circumstances, learned Magistrate was

perfectly justified in dismissing the petition. If petitioner wants

examine the said witness, he is at liberty to examine the witness

at the defence evidence stage as his witness.

Petition is dismissed.

(M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE)

ps/06/09