JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the complainant in CC No.2731 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur and accused in CC No. 2341 of 2009 on the file of the same court. They are case and counter case. In CC No.2341 of 2009, a lock was produced. It was marked as MO1 in the course of the trial. The scene mahazar in it has been marked as Ext.P3. It appears that MO1 and Ext.P3 are relevant in CC No.2731/2009 also. In this case the petitioner was examined as PW1. Later, he filed CMP No.733/2015 to recall him for further examination for the purpose of tendering in evidence the lock and the scene mahazar, which were marked as MO1 and Ext.P3 in the counter case, CC No.2341/2009. He also filed CMP No.734/2015 to call for the material object and the document from the counter case. By Ext.P8 order, the learned magistrate dismissed both applications. Its correctness is challenged.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3.The learned magistrate rejected the prayers of the petitioner for the reason that the material object produced in one case cannot be produced in another case and it is sufficient to mark a certified copy of