A J THARAKAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is Chairman of Higashimaru Feeds (India) Limited, Amalgam House, Willingdon Island, Cochin who has been summoned as a defence witness by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I Cherthala in C.C. 968 of 1999 on the file of his court issuing Annexure 4 summons is the petitioner in this Crl.M.C. He has filed this Crl.M.C. invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Crl.P.C. to have Annexure 4 summons issued to him quashed.

(2.) The contention that is advanced before me by the learned counsel is that the petitioner Sri. A.J. Tharakan being the Chair of the complainant company is himself the de facto complainant on the corporate veil and hence he cannot be summoned as a witness the opposite party though the complaint has been filed by the company represented by the General Manager (Finance). On the other hand it is contended by counsel for the respondent that the company is a legal entity and on behalf of the company the General Manager (Finance) has filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and at best it can only be said that the said General Manager (Finance) who has filed the complaint cannot be called upon by the defence to tender evidence as a witness for the defence but that the Chairman of the complainant/company which is a legal entity cannot claim any privilege of not being summoned as a witness for the defence especially when he is stated to be a witness who has witnessed payment by the accused of amounts to the second witness in the defence witness schedule namely Sri. A.O. Antony, Accounts Officer of the company and to whom the accused had given cheque, stamp papers etc. as well. It is worthy to note that the accused has stated in the witness schedule as to why he has cited the petitioner as a witness and the learned Magistrate has issued summons to the witness having got satisfied of the necessity to issue summons. I see no reason why this court is to interfere in the matter and quash the summons especially when petitioner is not the complainant but the company only of which he happens to be the Chairman at present. Crl.M.C. is hence devoid of merit and is dismissed.