Held that recalling cites witnesses is not interfered with but a new hearing held to determine if a specific witness can examine PW42 to contradict him on matters other than character.
Impugned order relating to examination of witness No.8 alone is quashed and remitted to the court below.
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
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 23RD MAGHA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 427 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRIMINAL M.P.NO.56/2018 IN S.C.NO.111/2011 OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE'S COURT(SPE-CBI)-I ERNAKULAM.
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2
MOHAMMED HANEEF @ JACKIE HANEEF, K.A.HOUSE, NEAR MALIK DINAR MASJID, THALANGARA, P.O.KASARGOD, KERALA.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SRI.K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM) SRI.V.JOHN THOMAS
SMT.V.T.LISSY
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CBI, REPRESENTED BY ITS STANDING COUNSEL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-31.
BY ADVS. SRI. SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR,( SPL.P.P. FOR C.B.I.) SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI,
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
TS
Crl.MC.No. 427 of 2018 () -------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 ORDER IN CRIMINAL M.P.NO.56/2018 IN S.C.NO.111/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE-CBI)-I ERNAKULAM DATED 11.01.2018.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES - NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
TS
[CR]
B. KEMAL PASHA, J.
Crl.M.C. No.427 of 2018
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2018
O R D E R
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Together with a request to recall PW4, PW13 and
PW16, who are cited as defence witnesses 1 to 3 in the list, the defence wanted to examine witness No.8 K.V.Sujatha, who was allegedly the wife of PW42.
presently requested for a permission to examine those witnesses in the list. As far as the recalling of PW4, PW13 and PW16 is concerned, this Court is of the view that there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the impugned order passed by the court below.
Crl.M.C.427/2018
: 2 :
K.V.Sujatha, the court below has found that it is barred under Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned defence counsel has pointed out that in all situations it cannot be said that such an examination of a witness to contradict another witness is not barred under Section 153
of the Indian Evidence Act; whereas, the bar comes into play only when questions to shake the credit or credibility of a witness were put to that witness by injuring his character.
Crl.M.C.427/2018
: 3 :
it relates to the examination of witness No.8 alone in the defence witness list, is quashed. The said aspect alone is remitted to the court below for taking a fresh decision in the matter.
Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.
Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE
aks/12/02
// True Copy //
PS to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether witnesses can be recalled despite impugned order disallowing examination.
Whether Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act bars the examination of a witness to contradict another without injuring their character.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MOHAMMED HANEEF @ JACKIE HANEEF
STATE OF KERALA
B.KEMAL PASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
