IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 82 of 2010(C) ----------------------------------- CRL.MP.NO.2999/2009 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA, CRIME NO.1194/07 OF CBCID-SIG-II ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONERS/WITNESSESS: ----------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 56, S/O.AHEMMEDKUTTY, PANNIYANKAD HOUSE, BUSTHANABAD KARA, VALIYAPARAMBU DESOM, KIZHKKOTH VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT PADATHIKARA, AMBALAMEDU POST, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ABDUL SALIM @ SALIM SAGHAVI, AGED 32, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, PALAKKAPARAMBU HOUSE, EDAPPILLY NORTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. ABDUL SAMAD, AGED 22, S/O.SHAMSUDEEN, MADANI HOUSE, AMBALAMEDU POST, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. AYOOB, AGED 31, S/O.MUHAMMED, ELAMANA HOUSE, MAMBRA KARA, MAMBRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. SUBAIR, AGED 41, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, PEECHINGAPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAPPILLY KARA, THRIKKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. SABEER THANGAL, AGED 26, S/O.MUHAMMED THANGAL, VALIYATHODI HOUSE, VENGARA, VALIYORAM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. CRL.M.C. NO.82/2010-C: 7. MUHAMMED FIZAL, AGED 38, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, KAKKAD HOUSE, V.I.PADI, EDAPPILLY NORTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.C.D.JOHNY, MR.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CBCID SIG II, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C No.82 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have Annexure A3 order quashed. In connection with a crime of offences punishable under Sections 452, 341 and 326 of Indian Penal Code, petitioners are intended to be subjected to Polygraph Test. The present complaint is that the Magistrate has allowed the petition without hearing the petitioners. 2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that, it was without giving an opportunity to them to put forward their contentions before the Magistrate, the order was passed. They say that that was not in accordance with law. 3. The order could have been passed only after hearing them and after considering the contentions. In the result, this petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the trial court to be disposed of in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE vdv