GEORGE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is against an order passed by the learned District Magistrate, Ernakulam, dismissing a petition for issue of summons, filed by the revision petitioner.

(2.) . The complainant revision petitioner filed the complaint alleging that the first accused had committed an act of forgery in connivance with the second accused. The 3rd accused is stated to be a former Secretary. The complainant was, during the material time, the Treasurer of Wepco Employees' Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd., of which the first accused was the Secretary. It's stated that there was a cash shortage of Rs. 675/- odd at the time when the first accused banded over charge to the second accused. It is further stated that this shortage was noted in the depot nalvazhi of the society. Subsequently, I am told, the society passed a resolution to write off the amount, which was acknowledged by the first accused at the time of handing over charge, as disclosed by the entry made by the first accused himself in the depot nalvazhi. However, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies did not agree to the proposal for writing off. This resulted in the society proceeding against the revision petitioner, in his capacity as the Treasurer, for recovery of this amount with interest at 18%. During the course of the proceedings before the Arbitrator, on 21-3-1970 it was found out by the revision petitioner that the acknowledgment in the band of the first accused in the nalvazhi had been erased. It is also stated that as a matter of fact, during the cross examination in the proceedings before the Arbitrator, the first accused bad admitted that the entry was made in his own hand. Though a petition was filed by the revision petitioner for keeping that document in safe custody on the very same day (21-3-1970), it seems that no step was taken by the Arbitrator for the safe custody of the document. It is not necessary to narrate all that has happened subsequently. In the present petition, after narrating the events, the prayer is that summons may be issued to the Arbitrator (Sri. V. K. Peter) and the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Ernakulam, who, it seems, has sent a letter stating that the depot nalvazhi referred to above was not with the Arbitrator (Sri. V. K. Peter) who was supposed to be in custody of the document.

(3.) The learned District Magistrate dismissed the petition declining to exercise the power under S.540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is stated that only four names had been mentioned in the witness list that accompanied the complaint, and that at the stage when the petition was filed it was not considered necessary to issue summons to the additional witnesses sought to be examined. I do not think that this approach of the learned District Magistrate is correct. S.540 Crl. P.C. is as follows: --