IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3958 of 2011() ----------------------------------- CC.98/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MATTANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.P.PAVITHRAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 53 YEARS, KUNNUMMEL HOUSE, KOLARI AMSOM, KALLOOR DESOM, KEECHERI P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. K.V.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBEESAN, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT JYOTHIS, KOLARI AMSOM DESOM, MATTANNUR, PIN-670 702, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. VELANGERI SREEDHARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 52 YEARS, `SREEBA NIVAS', MUTHUPPIL, P.O.KEECHERI, MATTANNUR-670 702,THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. KOZHUKUNNON MOHANAN, S/O. ANANDAN NAMBIAR, AGED 46 YEARS, KOZHUKUNNON HOUSE, MUTHUPPIL, P.O.KEECHERI, MATTANNUR-670 702, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. KAIPPACHERI BINEESH, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 40 YEARS, KAIPPACHERI HOUSE, MARUTHAI, P.O.PORORA, PIN-670 702, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. --2-- DG Crl.MC.No. 3958 of 2011() 5. GANESHAN, S/O.PARAMESHWARAN, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNNATH PARAMBIL, MARUTHAI, P.O.PORORA, PIN-670 702, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. DINESHAN NAMBEESAN, S/O.KESAVAN NAMBEESAN, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT `SAPHALYA' NEAR KALLUR MAHAVISHNU KSHETRAM, P.O.MATTANNUR, 670 702, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. BALAKRISHNAN NAMBEESAN, S/O.SHANKARAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 56 YEARS, NEAR KALLUR MAHAVISHNU KSHETRAM, P.O.PORORA, PIN-670 702. 8. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 707. 9. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 001. 10. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS R8 TO R10 ADV.SMT.JASMINE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: DG Crl.MC.No. 3958 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1 - TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.350 OF 2006 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2 - TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 9TH RESPONDENT ON 30.7.2007. ANNEXURE 3 - TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF PARTIES AND THE ENQUIRY REPORT FILED BY THE C.I. OF POLICE BEFORE THE 9TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.2.2010 IN C.M.P.NO.4483 OF 2009 IN C.C.NO.98 OF 2007. ANNEXURE 5 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION AND THE LIST OF DOCUMENT IN CMP NO.4667 OF 2010 IN C.C.98 OF 2007. ANNEXURE 6 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.8.2011 IN CMP NO.4667 OF 2010 IN C.C.98 OF 2007. ANNEXURE 7 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN CMP NO.4668 OF 2010 IN C.C. 98 OF 2007. ANNEXURE 8 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.8.2011 IN CMP NO.4668 OF 2010 IN CC 98 OF 2007. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES - NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE DG N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3958 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December 2011 O R D E R Annexure 8 order passed by the learned Magistrate is under challenge in this petition. A petition was purported to have been filed before that court by the de facto complainant under Sec.24 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petition should have been under Sec.301 Cr.P.C. and not under Sec.24. The learned Magistrate dismissed that petition stating that the Advocate Commissioner who was the main witness in that case is already examined and so no useful purpose will be served by a counsel assisting APP who is actually conducting the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out certain factors which according to him, were not brought in evidence and that was the reason why the petitioner has filed the petition for engaging an advocate to assist the APP. If an advocate instructs the APP, in the conduct of the case no serious prejudice will be caused to the accused. Hence, the request made by the petitioner to engage an advocate Crl.M.C. No.3958 of 2011 -: 2 :- to assist APP as provided under Sec.301(2) Cr.P.C. is allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the same day another order was passed as evidenced by Annexure 6 and hence the learned Magistrate may be directed to re- consider. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certified copy of the report of the Advocate Commissioner was produced in court but the application to receive that document was dismissed by the court below. It is not known why the learned APP has not taken care to produce that document. Since now the petition under Sec.301(2) Cr.P.C. has been allowed, it is for the advocate who assists the APP to do whatever is required in the matter. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as stated above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J UDGE. Jvt