IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 43 of 2008() ---------------------------- C.M.P.NO.3454/2007 IN C.C.NO.300/2005 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL 1 CLASS MAGISTRATE- I, CHENGANNUR REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------------------- MAMMEN K.CHERIYAN, KOTTOORETH COMPLEX, MUNDENKAVU MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MURALI MENON, INDIRAPRASTHAM, MUNDENKAVU MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE. 2. REKHA.K.NAIR, WIFE OF MURALI MENON, INDIRAPRASTHAM, MUNDENKAVU MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No. 43 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008 ORDER The revision petitioner is the complainant in a private complaint filed before the J.F.C.M-I, Chengannur and registered as C.C.No.3454 of 2007 alleging an offence punishable under Section 511 of 435 IPC. The petitioner and another witness were examined under Section 244 Cr.P.C. After considering their evidence, the learned Magistrate framed charge against the accused for offences punishable under Section 511 of 435 IPC. Thereafter, the charge for the aforesaid offence framed was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty to the same. Since the accused wished to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution, the case was posted for cross-examination of PWs1 and 2. It was at that stage that the revision petitioner filed C.M.P.No.3454 of 2007 to appoint a Commission for the purpose of his cross-examination, at the residence of the complainant. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate as per the impugned order dated 18.12.07, inter alia on the ground that a reading of Section 284 to 286 will indicate that Sections 284 to Crl.R.P.No.43 of 2008 2 286 Cr.P.C is meant for those cases where the witnesses are residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court . 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the aforesaid reason given by the Magistrate is unsustainable in law. The petitioner, who is a man aged 92 years, is unable to undertake a travel to the Court and that his previous examination was in the year 2005 and thereafter he has become sickly and unable to move. 3. It is true that for Section 284 Cr.P.C to be invoked, it is not necessary that the witnesses should be residing outside the local limits of the Magistrate. But that is not the only reason as to why the impugned order can be sustained. This is a case which originated on a private complaint and if the petitioner is desirous of prosecuting the accused, he should be prepared to come before the court and swear to the facts necessary for sustaining the complaint. Delay, expense or inconvenience which are the factors which justify the appointment of a Commission for the examination of witnesses cannot be interpreted to mean that the inconvenience is that of the witness and not the court. The petitioner is admittedly residing in Crl.R.P.No.43 of 2008 3 Chengannur Village within the jurisdiction of the trial court and the learned Magistrate did not find any good ground to appoint a Commission for the continued examination of the complainant. In fact, if a Commission were to be appointed for the further examination of the petitioner, having regard to the procedure under Section 286 to 289 Cr.P.C, that will only result in further delay in the disposal of the case. Hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj