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