The High Court of Kerala dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition challenging a C.M.P. that allowed the recall of one witness but disallowed summoning others to contradict a previous statement in a distinct case.
The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed leaving the impugned order of the Magistrate to come into final effect.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 397 of 2009()
----------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/01/2009 IN CMP. 15179 /2008 IN CC.201/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM
REVN. PETITIONER(S):
BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL
RESPONDENT(S):
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
Crl.R.P. No.397 of 2009
Dated: 10th February, 2009
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners who are accused Nos. 4 to 7 and 10 in Crime No. 261/CR/2000 for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. As per C.M.P. No.15179/08 the petitioners sought permission under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. To summon P.W1 and Pws 42 and 43 for the purpose of contradicting P.W.1 (the de facto complainant) with regard to his previous statement in Crime No. 761 of 2000 of Adoor Police Station. The said request was disallowed by the Magistrate placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Babu - 1999 (2) KLT 301.
Crl.R.P. No. 397 of 2009
-:2:-
given in Crime No. 61 of 2000 was rightly rejected by the learned Magistrate. The court below has, however, allowed the request of the petitioner to recall P.W.41. I see no reason to interfere with the discretion validly exercised by the Magistrate as per the impugned order dated 6-1-2009.
This petition is accordingly, dismissed.
Dated, this the 10th day of February, 2009.
Sd/-V. Ramkumar, Judge.
ani
/true copy/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the request to summon witnesses for contradicting a deposition should be allowed when cases are held distinct.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Magistrate's discretion to recall a witness.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala v. BabuReferred¶28
State of Kerala v. Babu - 1999 (2) KLT 301
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramani
Sarathlal
Vijayan
Ajitha
Syamala
State of Kerala
V. Ramkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
