IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 293 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.2/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------- 1. GIRISH, S/O.HARIHARAN, 'KARISHMA', YMCA ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 2. ASHIDH, S/O.MUHAMMED, THAYYILTHODI HOUSE, ARTS COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAKAVU POLICE STATION, NADAKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 293 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have Annexure B quashed. 2. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in C.C. No.2 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-IV, Kozhikode for having committed offence punishable under Section 292 Indian Penal Code. Allegation against him is that on 22.12.2004 at about 3.15 p.m. they were found involved in undesirable activities and they were taken into custody. Annexure A is the FIR. 3. It is pointed out by the petitioners that trial commenced and P.Ws. 1 to 8 were examined. Prosecution had closed its evidence. Opportunity was Crl.M.C.293/2010. 2 given to the defence to adduce their evidence and after having followed all the formalities, the case was taken up for judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would say that to the utter surprise of the petitioners on 14.12.2009 an order was simply passed re-opening the case under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that an opportunity should have been given to them to point out that the re-opening of the case is not warranted and atleast they were entitled to know as to why Section 311 Cr.P.C. being resorted to by the court below. It is without giving an opportunity to do so and without hearing them an order was passed. According to the learned counsel it is illegal. 6. There can be no doubt that the court has inherent power to re-open a case, but that can be only on justifiable reasons. The petitioners are entitled to point out that the re-opening of the evidence is not justified in law and not warranted in the case on hand. Crl.M.C.293/2010. 3 In the result, this petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below for a fresh consideration and decision after affording an opportunity to the parties to raise their contentions before the court below. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.