Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 178 (KER)

OFF THE GRID INTERIORS v. STATE OF KERALA

2022-02-21

MARY JOSEPH

body2022
ORDER : 1. An order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (NI Act Cases), Ernakulam (for short ‘the trial court’) on 02.02.2022 is taken up in challenge in the petition on hand. 2. The order was passed by the court below suo motu in a prosecution launched by the 2nd respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’) whereby the jurisdiction under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) was invoked to ascertain the name of the persons who are operating the bank accounts shown on Ext.X1, the operation status of the account being “anyone.” 3. The order reads as follows: “Heard the complainant. Accused represented. However, in the course of hearing it is seen that in Exhibit X1 bank statement which is vital in the transaction in question, the Account is in the name of ‘A.L. Sreenivasa Shenoy and Others’ from which the complaint is alleged to have made the payment to the accused. The operation status of the said Account is shown as “Anyone.” Hence, for the just decision of this case, this court finds it inevitable to invoke section 311, Suo Motu, so as to ascertain the name of persons who are operating the bank account shown on Exhibit X1. Hence issue summons to the Bank Manager, Federal Bank Marine Drive Branch to bring up the details of the persons operating the aforesaid Account. For compliance, Call on 16.02.2022 ” According to the learned counsel representing the petitioner in the case on hand, Ext.X1 bank statement is a vital document in the transaction. According to him, the account is in the name of ‘A.L. Sreenivasa Shenoy and Others’ from which the complainant is alleged to have made the payment to the accused. But, the operation status of the account being ‘Anyone’ the trial court has found it inevitable to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C and accordingly order dated 02.02.2022 was recorded. 4. In the case on hand the trial court has noticed from Ext.X1 that the operation status of the account maintained with the bank is ‘anyone’ who all will come under ‘anyone’ is a matter relevant and requires clarification and therefore, the jurisdiction under Section 311 was invoked suo motu for summoning the Bank Manager for production of details of the persons who are operating the account. It is very much within the power conferred by the Code on the court to summon any person as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined, if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. It is for the trial court to say what all evidence are required to reach a just decision of the case seized of it. The trial court has explained in the impugned order that the details summoned through the Bank Manager is very much essential for arriving at a just decision in the case. Therefore the trial court is perfectly justified in passing the impugned order and interference on merits is uncalled for. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that the trial court by the impugned order only meant marking of materials containing the details in evidence and therefore, he would be denied with opportunity to cross examine the witness, which is a valuable right of him. 6. In the above context this court is inclined to modify the order assailed by directing the trial court to grant reasonable opportunity to cross examine the Bank Manager with reference to the details produced by him. 7. The Crl. M.C. stands disposed of with direction issued as above.