Kerala High Court
Renjith.L vs State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2023
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
OP(CRL.) NO. 971 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 1673/2019 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL
COURT II, NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER/S:
RENJITH.L
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O LOPEZH, RESIDING AT THURAYADI THEKKEKARA, NEAR
KANNADIPALLI, KARUMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695526
BY ADVS.
J.R.PREM NAVAZ
SUMEEN S.
MUHAMMED SWADIQ
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN (SR PP)
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (Crl) No.971/2023 -2-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this court challenging Ext.P3 order
dated 20-11-2023 in CMP No.42/2023 in S.C No.1673/2019. The petitioner
faces allegations of having committed offences under Sections 354A, 354D
and 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11 (iv) read with 12 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the POCSO Act). In
SC No.1673/2019 he filed Ext.P1 application along with Ext.P2 witness list
seeking issuance of summons by the court for examination of the witnesses
and for the purpose of marking the documents mentioned in Ext.P2. It is
submitted that the said application was dismissed by Ext.P3 without
considering the prayer in terms of the provisions contained in Section 233 (3)
of the Cr. P.C. It is submitted that it is clear from a reading of the aforesaid
provision that court was bound to issue such process for compelling the
attendance of any witness for production of any document or thing unless it
considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused
on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or to defeat
the ends of justice. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgments
of the Supreme Court in T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar; (2008) 5 SCC
633 and Mrs. Kalyani Baskar v. Mrs. M.S. Sampoornam; (2007) 2
SCC 258 in support of his contention.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor I am of the opinion that Ext.P3 need not be set
aside in its entirety. A reading of the order shows that the District Police
Chief, Thiruvananthpuram was sought to be summoned for the production of
a complaint stated to have been filed by the petitioner on 08-03-2021. Exts.P1
and P2 do not indicate as to how that a complaint was relevant to the matter
before the court. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was correct in
rejecting the application in so far as it relates to issuance of summons to the
District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram. Coming to the second witness, the
petitioner wanted to summon the Manager, State Bank of India, Poovar
branch along with account account statement of the petitioner bearing
No.3464 maintained in the said branch for the purpose of proving that certain
payments have been made by the petitioner to PW2 (mother of the victim). It
is clear that if the petitioner wishes to rely on any account statement, it is not
necessary to prove the same by summoning the Bank Manager and he may, if
necessary, summon the statement of accounts along with necessary
certification and seek to rely on the same having regard to the provisions
contained in Section 4 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. Therefore, it
will be sufficient if summons is issued for the production of the said
document by the court. Coming to the third witness namely the
Superintendent Special Sub Jail, Neyyattinkara, I am of the opinion that the
petitioner can be allowed to summon that witness along with Visitors' Book
pertaining to the period when the petitioner was in custody to prove that PW2
had visited the petitioner on several occasions. Therefore Ext.P3 order is set
aside to the extent it relates witness Nos.3 mentioned in Ext.P2. The court
shall issue summons to witness No.3 mentioned in Ext.P2 to produce the
Visitors' Book Register for the relevant period. In so far as it relates to the
bank statement, the court shall issue summons for production of the said
document and it is not necessary to examine the Bank Manager for the said
purpose. I am inclined to issue the aforesaid directions also keeping in mind
the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 of T. Nagappa
(supra) and paragraph 12 of Kalyani Baskar (surpa).
Original petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
AMG
APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 971/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN CMP 42/2023 IN SC
1673/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAST
TRACK SPECIAL COURT-II, NEYYATTINKARA SEEKING FOR
ORDERS GRANTING ACCEPTANCE OF ADDITIONAL WITNESS LIST
AS ALSO FOR ISSUING SUMMONS TO THE WITNESS DATED
30/10/2023
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WITNESS LIST IN SC
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2023 IN C.M.P
NO.42 OF 2023 IN S.C. NO. 1673 OF 2019 PASSED BY THE
FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT-II, NEYYATTINKARA IN
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
