PRASAD PROPRIETOR PRASAD ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act. The 2nd respondent is the complainant and the complainant is a Private Limited Company. The trial has already commenced. The matter is remaining at the stage of defence evidence. The petitioner has filed an application to summon the witness employed by the complainant/company to appear, to produce certain documents and to give evidence. By the impugned order which I extract below, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application:

(2.) The learned counsel for the rival contestants have been heard. The complainant is a Company. The witness sought to be summoned is an officer of the company. I find CRL.M.C.NO. 2736 OF 2006 -: 2 :- absolutely nothing, in law, which can stand in the way of the petitioner summoning an official of the company for production of certain documents. No provision of law has been brought to my notice which would disentitle the accused to pray for issue of summons to an officer of the complainant/company to appear and to give evidence. Sec.254(2) certainly permits the summoning of witnesses for the defence. The complainant - company in law is a different legal personality and cannot be equated to the complainant. The impugned order does, in these circumstances, warrant interference. The reason shown is not sufficient. The learned Magistrate shall consider the application afresh on merits and pass appropriate orders.

(3.) In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed to the above extent.