High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
K.S.Suresh v. P.Ravikumar - Crl. R.C. No.830 of 2005  RD-TN 2576 (2 August 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN Crl. R.C. Nos.830 and 831 of 2005
Crl. M.P. No.5267 of 2005
S/o K. Seetharama Rao
Crystal Note Books Pvt.Ltd
Coimbatore 6. ..Petitioner in both revisions Vs
P.Ravikumar ..Respondent in both revisions These Revisions are filed against the order in C.M.P.No.870 and 869 of 2005 in C.C.No.63 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi. For petitioner : Mr.R.John Sathyan For respondent : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran C O M M O N O R D E R
The second accused in C.C.No. 63/2004 has filed the petition C.M.P.No.870 of 2005 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to direct D.W.1 to produce (1) document relating to the reconstitution of the first petitioner/first accused firm in the year 2004 2) document relating to the power conferred upon one of the Directors of the company to sign in cheques on behalf of the company. He has also filed another petition in C.M.P.No.869 of 2005 in C.C.No.63 of 2004 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall D.W.1 for further examination.
2. The trial Judge, after hearing both sides, has dismissed both the petitions which necessitated the second accused to prefer Crl.R.C.No.830 of 2005 against the order passed in C.M.P.870 of 2004 in C.C.No.63/2004 and Crl.R.C.No.831 of 2005 against the order passed in C M.P.No.869 of 2005 in C.C.No.63 of 2004.
3. Heard Mr.John Sathyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr.Kaithamalai Kumaran,learned counsel appearing for the respondent and considered their respective submissions.
4. The reason given in the order of the learned trial Judge for dismissing both the petitions is that the document sought for to be produced by DW.1 viz., the document relating to the reconstitution of the first petitioner viz., Crystal Note Books Pvt.Ltd. In the year 2004 and the documents relating to the power conferred upon one of the directors of the said firm are only with the custody of the petitioner and there is no need to direct the D.W.1 to produce those documents. The learned trial Judge has of the firm opinion that only to drag on the proceedings the said petitions were filed and consequently dismissed the petitions.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would admit that being one of the directors of the first accused company, both the documents mentioned in the petitions in C.M.P.No.870 of 2005 are in the possession of the revision petitioner and that he may be given an opportunity to produce those documents before the trial Court. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned trial Judge in C.M.P.870 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.869 of 2005 in C.C.No.63 of 2004.
6. In fine, Crl.R.C.Nos.830 and 831 of 2005 are dismissed confirming the order of the learned trial Judge in C.M.P.Nos.870 of 2005 and 869 of 2005 in C.C.No.63 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judidial Magistrate, Kodumudi Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.No.5267 of 2005 is also dismissed. It is open to the revision petitioner to enter into the box before the trial Court and produce the documents which are relevant. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with C.C.No.63/2004 pending on his file and dispose of the same within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. sg .
The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.