IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4393 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.411/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KATTAKADA .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 --------------------------------------------- 1. PRASAD HARIHARAN, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT BHARATHAM, NETTAYIKODATHU LANE, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN. 2. KUMAR. V., AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT VISHAKH, VENGANOOR STREET, PALLICHAL P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 3. RAJESH RAMADASAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. RAMADASAN, RESIDING AT RAM NIVAS, PONNIAM WEST P.O., THALASSERY. BY ADVS. SRI. S. K. AJAYAKUMAR SMT. PRIYA. H. RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SURESH BABU, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDA PANICKER, KADAYARA PUTHEN VEEDU HOUSE, KUZHAIKKAD MURI, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, PIN - 691 531. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PN Crl.MC.No. 4393 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME 425/05 OF KATTAKADA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A2: COPY OF DEPOSITION OF CW2 ANNEXURE-A3: COPY OF DEPOSITION OF CW4 ANNEXURE-A4: COPY OF DEPOSITION OF CW5 ANNEXURE-A5: COPY OF DEPOSITION OF CE6 ANNEXURE-A6: COPY OF ORDER SHEET IN CC 411/06 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KATTAKKADA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P. A. TO JUDGE PN N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl. M.C. No: 4393 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No:411/2006 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada. The charge sheet was laid against these petitioners and other accused under sections 143, 147, 148, 451, 427, 393 and 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the prosecution witnesses were examined and now the learned Magistrate has posted the case for alteration of the charge and to record the plea of the accused on the altered charge. It seems when the learned Magistrate went through the records it could be found that there was defect in the charge. The learned Magistrate can certainly alter/amend the charge. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that CW1, the complainant was not examined as he was not Crl. M.C. No: 4393 OF 2011 -2- available and that other witnesses did not support the prosecution. That is concerning the merit of the case. That cannot be gone into now. The request made by the learned counsel is that the learned Magistrate may be directed to dispose of the case at the earliest. If the petitioner does not want further cross-examination of the witnesses, after the alteration of the charge, then certainly there may not be much difficulty for the learned Magistrate to dispose of the case at the earliest. Considering the fact that the case is of the year 2006, the learned Magistrate will dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE jjj