JUDGMENT

This original petition is filed challenging an order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I. Act Cases), Ernakulam on 08.11.2021 in CMP No.3851/2021 in C.C.No.4747/2016. The impugned order reads:

“1. The instant petition is filed by the counsel for the accused to direct the complainant to produce the documents.

Heard both sides.

2. It is discernible that, all the documents sought by accused in the petition are admitted by PW1 to be in the custody of the complainant. Hence, the accused has filed this petition to call for the documents for perusing the same. Hence, this court finds no reason to curtail the right of the petitioner to seek the documents for perusing the same, by invoking Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Hence, the petition stands allowed. The complainant shall produce the said documents on the next date of posting.”

2. The court below has allowed the application and directed the petitioner/complainant to produce the documents. The application seeking for production of the documents is also produced along with the petition on hand. The documents sought to be produced are:

“1. The Chitty registration certificate of chitty No.BL 10/39/7 issued from the registrar of chitty state of Kerala. 2. Chitty variyola in Form No.14 duly executed by the subscriber and guarantor in favour of the complainant.

3. Chitty agreement in connection with the chitty of Biju N.S.

4. The copy of audited balance sheet of chitty BL 10/39/7 for the period 2015-2016 produced before the registrar of chitty in the above case.”

3. Copy of the complaint is also produced alongwith as Ext.P1, wherein the disputed cheque was alleged as issued in connection with a chitty transaction.

4. In the context that the 2nd respondent has filed the application seeking for production of the above documents, purely related to the chitty transaction. The prayer of the petitioner is found to have basis and accordingly, the application seeking for production of documents was allowed by the impugned order. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

O.P.(Crl.) fails and is dismissed.

Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE bpr APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 89/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.4747/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE J.F.C.M. (N.I. ACT CASES), ERNAKULAM.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT COMPANY BEFORE J.F.C.M. (N.I.

ACT CASES), ERNAKULAM.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE WITNESS DEPOSITION OF PW1.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE 313 STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED RECORDED BY THE COURT BELOW.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF C.M.P.NO.3851/2021 FILED BY THE ACCUSED BEFORE THE COURT BELOW.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED

23/10/2021 FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT IN C.M.P.NO.3851/2021 BEFORE THE COURT BELOW.(N.I.ACT CASES) COURT, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P7 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED

08/11/2021 IN C.M.P.NO.3851/2021 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (N.I.ACT CASES) COURT, ERNAKULAM