The accused has the right to summon witnesses for establishing a defense, which must not be hindered by the trial court.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.432 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Idukki.

2. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 454 and 427 of IPC .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 01.06.2018 due to enmity towards CW1, the petitioner trespassed into the mobile shop of CW1 in the middle of the town in the midday and destroyed electronics equipments, mobile phones, emergency lights and computers and caused a loss of more than Rs.1,11,399/-.

4. The evidence of the prosecution is over. The petitioner was examined under Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a witness list, to issue summons to the three witnesses. The application was dismissed as per Ext.P3 order. The said order is under challenge in this original petition.

5. I have heard Sri.John Joseph(Roy), the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. Three witnesses were sought to be summoned. The 1^st witness is the Panchayat Secretary of Vathikudy Grama Panchayat. The 2^nd witness is Sri.C.R.Haridas, the Sub Inspector of Police, Murickassery Police Station. The 3^rd witness is the officer of the Kerala State Commerical Shops and Establishment Department, Thodupuzha. In the impugned order, the trial court found that no reason had been shown by the petitioner for examining those witnesses.

7. As stated already, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner trespassed into the mobile shop of CW1 and destroyed electronics equipments, mobile phones etc. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1^st witness sought to be examined is the Panchayat Secretary of Vathikudy Grama Panchayat and the document sought to be produced through him is the document showing in whose name the shop stands. According to the learned counsel, the incident took place in the said shop and the document sought to be produced is to prove that CW1 does not have ownership or possession over the same.

8. CW1 was examined as PW1. The copy of the deposition of PW1 has been produced. In cross examination, PW1 has admitted that two days prior to the alleged incident, a case had been registered against him on the allegation that he had trespassed into the property of the petitioner. The 2^nd witness sought to be summoned is Sri.C.R.Haridas, the Sub Inspector of Police, Murickassery Police Station to produce the FIS and FIR relating to the crime registered in connection with the said incident.

9. The 3^rd witness is an officer of the Kerala State Commerical Shops and Establishment Department, Thodupuzha. He is sought to be summoned to produce the licence, if any, obtained by PW1 under the Kerala State Commerical Shops and Establishment Act on or after

01.06.2018. The learned counsel submitted that the said evidence is necessary to prove that the shop where the alleged incident took place is not in the ownership or possession of CW1.

8. The right of an accused to adduce defence evidence is a valuable right. Considering the purpose for which the witnesses are sought to be summoned and the documents are sought to be produced, I am of the view that they are necessary to prove the defence case. When the defence wants to prove his defence in a particular manner, the court cannot shut down the said evidence. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. The trial court is directed to issue summons to the witnesses shown in the witness list and examine them.

The original petition is disposed of accordingly.