IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4322 of 2005() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9/12/2005 ON CRMP 5669/05 IN SC.475/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------- STEEPHEN JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KEERIYODU KARA, KARIKKODE VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKKEN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.3509/06 IN CRL.M.C.NO.4322/06 //DISMISSED// 17.2.09 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, J. ----------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.No.4322 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 O R D E R The prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to quash the order dated 9.12.2005 in Crl.M.P.No.5669/05 in S.C.No.475/2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha. 2. As per the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the petition filed by the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to examine the prosecutrix who was already examined as PW2. Copy of that order is produced as Annexure-II. That order is challenged by the petitioner/2nd accused in the above case who is facing trial for the offences alleged under Section 376(2)(b) and (c) and Section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities)Act. 3. It is revealed from the copy of the order sheet in the above case forwarded to this Court that charge was framed by the learned Sessions Judge against accused Nos.1 and 2 on CRL.M.C.No.4322/05 -2- 24.2.2005. Examination of witnesses were started on 17.5.2005. Both accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 1.6.2005. DWs 1 and 2 were examined and marked D1 on defence side on 17.6.2005. Evidence closed on that day and posted for hearing. On 25.8.2005, “reopened and posted with connected case”. Then case was adjourned for several days for hearing. Subsequently, on 30.11.2005, petition was filed under section 311 of Cr.P.C., which was allowed on 9.12.2005. That order is challenged in this petition with the allegation that Section 311 of Cr.P.C. would come into play only at the stage of inquiry or trial, relying on the dictum laid down in the decision of this Court reported in Sajeendran v. Thalakulathoor Grama Panchayat (2004(1) KLT 69. It is alleged in this petition that the defence counsel argued the case and the case was posted for judgment as early as on 5.7.2005. This appears as not correct in the light of the postings made in the order sheet as noted above. 4. The above mentioned decision of the learned single Judge has been overruled as per decision of this Court in Sree Venkatadeswara Enterprises v. Rajasekharan Nair (2006(3) KLT 930). Paragraph 15 of the said decision reads as follows: “15. For the reasons discussed earlier we hold that CRL.M.C.No.4322/05 -3- learned Single Judge has not correctly laid the law in Sajeendran v. Thalakulathoor Grama Panchayat (2004(1) KLT 69) and Joseph P.T. v. K.K.Rajappan & Anr. (2004(1) KLJ(NOC)12=2003(3) KLT SN 17). We overrule the same and hold that trial as provided under S.311 of the Code will not be terminated by closing the evidence of prosecution and defence or posting the case for judgment. Trial would stand terminated only on pronouncing the judgment either acquitting the accused or awarding the sentence after conviction.” In these circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order in Crl.M.P.No.5669/05 in S.C.No.475/2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of S.C.No.475/03 at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn