Dismissed

M.C.Murali v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Mar 2018Crl.MC/1422/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam dismissed a criminal miscellaneous appeal challenging the dismissal of a petition for recalling a prosecution witness for further cross-examination. The court upheld the lower court's decision, noting the petition failed to specify the purpose for recall or demonstrate why further examination was essential for justice.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous appeal against the order dismissing the petition for recall of the witness stands dismissed.

M.C.Murali Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1422 of 2018

¶6

CR.M.P NO 7395 OF 2018 IN C.C NO 1439 OF 2014 OF

¶7

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-1, HOSDURG

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

M.C.MURALI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. M.C KRISHNAN, GIRIJA JEWELLARY, KANHANGAD, HOSDURG TALUK

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE AND ANOTHER OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031

¶13

2. A. SUDHAKARAN,AGED 57 YEARS,S/O. T.V AMBU, R/AT OM NIVAS, MADIYAN, MANIKOTH P.O AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK-671 315.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 1422 of 2018 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C NO 1439 OF 2014 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-1,HOSDURG
ANNEXURE AII A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW1 IN C.C NO 1439 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-1,HOSDURG
ANNEXURE AIII A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF DW1 IN C.C NO 1439 OF 2014 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I,HOSDURG
ANNEXURE AIV A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 3 OF CR.P.C
ANNEXURE AV A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITION
ANNEXURE AVI A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09-02-2018 IN CR.M.P NO 7395 OF 2018 IN C.C NO 1439 OF 2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-1,HOSDURG

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

STK

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶25

--------------------------------

¶26

Crl.M.C. No.1422 of 2018

¶27

Dated this the 6^th day of March, 2018

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1439/2014 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Hosdurg. The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.7395/2018 before the court below under Section 311 Cr.P.C. praying for recalling PW1 after re-opening the evidence for further cross-examination. The court below as per Annexure-A6 order dismissed the said petition, against which this Crl.M.C. has been filed.

¶30

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

¶31

It is not disputed that PW1 was already crossexamined on behalf of the accused. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined. After the examination of DW1, the present Crl.M.P. was filed by the petitioner.

¶32

The court below found that the petitioner

¶33

Crl.M.C. No.1422 of 2018

¶34

-: 2 :-

¶35

did not mention anything in the petition with regard to the purpose for which PW1 had to be recalled. I have gone through the petition filed by the petitioner which is annexed as Annexure-A4. No reason was stated in the said petition by the petitioner as to why PW1 had to be recalled. The said petition, being a very short petition, is extracted hereunder:-

¶36

“Petition filed under Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code.

¶37

It is humbly submitted as follows:

¶38

That the accused has already crossexamined the PW1, but after adducing the evidence of DW1, the cross- examination of PW1 is highly necessary.

¶39

That the cross-examination of PW1 is essential to the just decision of the case.

¶40

It is therefore humbly prayed that the court may be pleased to recall PW1 for crossexamination, in the interest of justice.”

¶41

5. Having gone through the petition, I am satisfied

¶42

that the court below was perfectly correct in holding that

¶43

Crl.M.C. No.1422 of 2018

¶44

-: 3 :-

¶45

no reason was stated in the petition for re-calling PW1. The court below was also perfectly justified in holding that Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as a matter of routine. Why the further cross-examination of PW1 was necessary for the just decision of the case, is also not reflected in the application. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned.

¶46

In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands dismissed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶49

STK

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

M.C.Murali v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C.Murali v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devadas Vs State of Kerala

Prakasan K. Vs P.Sidharthan

T.Rugmini Vs Sarath P.P.

K.R.Ramesh Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala

Sunny Anto.C Vs N.M.Govindan and Another