Petitioner challenged the dismissal of his contempt summons seeking to summon a Sub Treasury Officer. The Court held the request ineffective for proving the alleged agreement and dismissed the petition.
Petition to summon Sub Treasury Officer dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929
Crl.MC.No. 1491 of 2007()
------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/05/2007 IN CMP.258/2007 IN ST.242/2005 of JFCM-VIII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER:
CHANDRAN KUTTY, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, P.C.NO.39/1258, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV
RESPONDENTS:
BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR , J.
==========================
CRL.M.C. No. 1491of 2007
========================== Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008.
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the accused in S.T. No. 242/2005 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-VIII, Thiruvananthapuram, challenges Annexure-III order dated 02.05.2007 passed by the Magistrate dismissing C.M.P.No. 258/2007 filed by the petitioner to summon the Sub Treasury Officer, Vizhinjam to show that the stamp paper on which Ext.D2 alleged agreement is written was purchased from a vendor attached to that particular Sub Treasury.
CRL. M.C. NO. 1491/2007 : 2 :
to be assumed that a stamp paper was purchased in the name of the accused, that does not advance his defence that Ext.D2 agreement was entered into between him and the complainant and the original of the said agreement is with the complainant. That is a matter which has to be proved by the other independent evidence. Hence, I fully endorse the conclusion which the Magistrate has made in Annexure -III order. This Crl. M.C. is accordingly dismissed. This will not preclude the petitioner from attempting to prove the alleged agreement by other independent evidence unless the Magistrate is convinced that the attempt of the petitioner is to protract the proceedings further.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
CRL. M.C. NO. 1491/2007 : 3 :
1 issue framed by the court
Issue as to whether reference to Sub Treasury Officer will help the petitioner prove his defence.
CHANDRAN KUTTY
STATE OF KERALA
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
