Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M.Prasannan vs Sajith.T.S on 16 March, 2016

Author: Sunil Thomas

Bench: Sunil Thomas

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT:

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

     THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/3RD BHADRA, 1938

                   Crl.MC.No. 5588 of 2016 ()
                   ---------------------------
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1086/2004 of JUDICIAL FIRST
            CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOTTARAKKARA

PETITIONER(S):
-------------

           M.PRASANNAN
            S/O.MADHAVANKUTTY, DWARAKA,
            CHITTATTUMUKKU, KADINAMKULAM,
            KANIYAPURAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

           BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/ACCUSED/STATE:
-------------------------------------

          1. SAJITH.T.S
           KANJIRAMVILA VEEDU IRUMPANANGAD,
           EZHUKONE, KOLLAM-691 505.

          2. SIVADASAN
           RANI NIVAS, 42/904,
           SREE NAGAR ROAD NO.77,
           VALLAKADAVU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008.

          3. THE STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

           BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SRI C K SURESH

        THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE   HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC.No. 5588 of 2016 ()




                            APPENDIX




PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------

ANNEXURE I :   TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE MEDICAL
               TREATMENTS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16-3-2016.

ANNEXURE II : TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE MEDICAL
               TREATMENTS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 8-5-2016.

ANNEXURE III : TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE MEDICAL
               TREATMENTS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 23-2-2015.

ANNEXURE IV : TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE MEDICAL
               TREATMENTS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 3-2-2015.

ANNEXURE V :   TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 19-10-2015
                ISSUEDBY MR.MADHU SREEDHARAN, SENIOR CONSULTANT
                CARDIOLOGIST, DIRECTOR, NIMS HEART FOUNDATION,
                NIMS HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE VI    TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY THE
               NIMS HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE VII : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING CC 1086/2004 DATED
               11-8-2016 FROM THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
               CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA.




RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:



                     SUNIL THOMAS, J.
                    =================
                  Crl.M.C.No.5588 of 2016
                    =================
             Dated this the 25th day of August, 2016

                             ORDER

Petitioner herein challenges Annexure-VII summons issued to him to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kottarakkara as a witness in a proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The contention of the petitioner herein is that he is aged, infirm and physically unfit to travel to Kottarakkara to give evidence. He has produced several documents to show his medical conditions. According to him, he is staying at Kaniyapuram and he is called upon to proceed to Kottarakkara.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Essentially, the question is whether personal attendance of the witness should be insisted for. Having regard to the medical reports produced, I feel that it will be better if the trial court itself gets an opportunity to evaluate the above materials and to decide whether personal appearance of accused should be insisted upon. Having regard to this, I am inclined to dispose of the Crl.M.C with a direction that on the date of next posting, petitioner may be Crl.M.C.5588/16 2 exempted from personal appearance. The case may adjourn thereafter beyond two weeks time, within which, the petitioner shall produce all the medical records in relation to his illness and court below after considering whether the examination of this petitioner is essential, having regard to the purpose of his examination and if the Court feels that his examination is essential, consider the question whether he is to be examined on commission as provided under section 284 Cr.P.C. It is made clear that in the event of request for commission is considered by the court below, it shall be at the expense of the accused, since the witness is proposed to be examined on his side.

Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS Judge Sbna/25/8/16 True Copy P A to Judge