IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3451 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/10/2008 IN CMP.4360/2008 IN CC.1284/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDURG .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 2ND PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ A.PADMAKUMAR, CHAIRMAN, DR.AMBEDKAR MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PERIYA, PERIYA VILLAGE, P.O.PERIYA, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT & 1ST PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT & A1/STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.PADMANABHAN NAIR, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.K.KUNHAMBU NAIR, RESIDING AT REVATHY, ERALAL, THAYANNUR VILLAGE, P.O.KALICHANADUKKAM, VIA NILESHWAR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. DR.AMBEDKAR MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PERIYA , PERIYA VILLAGE, P.O.PERIYA, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU FOR R3 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRRP 3451/2008 OR DER ON CRL.M.A. 10581OF 2008 IN CRRP 3451 OF 2008 DISMISSED 23.10.2008 SD/- M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. Okb/- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 3451 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner is the second accused in C.C.1284 of 2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg. Revision is filed under section 397 read with section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order passed by learned Magistrate on 13.10.2008 dismissing C.M.P.4360 of 2008. That petition was filed to recall PW1 for further cross-examination in exercise of the power provided under section 311 of Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that petitioner did not mention on what point PW1 is to be cross- examined further and in the absence of proper reasons it cannot be said that for a just decision in the case PW1 is to be recalled exercising the power provided under section 311 of Cr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner argued that no prejudice would be caused to the complainant by allowing the application and permitting petitioner to further cross-examine PW1 and even if some delay is caused, it could be compensated by costs and in such circumstances learned Magistrate was not justified in denying an opportunity. Learned counsel made available copy of the counter filed by complainant to the petition CRRP 3451/08 2 filed by petitioner. 3. It is clear that PW1 was originally not cross-examined by the petitioner. At the stage when the case was posted for defence evidence, petitioner filed an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall PW1 for cross-examination. It was allowed. PW1 was cross-examined. It is thereafter a second petition for the same relief was filed invoking section 311 of Cr.P.C. It was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. It cannot be said that as and when a petition is filed under section 311 of Cr.P.C. Court is to allow the same. It is for the Court to decide whether for a just decision of the case, the power under section 311 is to be exercised or not. As petitioner does not disclose on what point he wish to further cross-examine PW1, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was illegal or unjust to be interfered in exercise of the revisional powers. I find no reason to interfere with that order. If the petitioner files another application showing reasons, learned Magistrate may consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Revision is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-