IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(Crl.).No. 3000 of 2011(Q) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC.249/2009 AND CC.1836/2008 of J.M.F.C.,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER ---------- K.M.BASHEER, S/O.UNNIHASAN, AGED 48 YEARS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE & AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, UBIQUE DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD. DOOR NO.V/499 B, CDA COLONY, ERANTNHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.RAFEEQUE. V.K. SRI.SEBIN THOMAS SRI.M.NOOHU KUNJU SAHIB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SANTHOSH P.S., S/O.SUNDARAN, PUTHENPURA (H), THIRUVANIKKAVU ROAD, OLLUKARA, THRISSUR-680655. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.R.REENA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS O. P. (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(Crl.).No. 3000 of 2011(Q) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO:249/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IRINJALAKUDA EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO:1836/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IRINJALAKUDA. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 26.2.2011 EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IRINJALAKUDA IN C.M.P. NO:2995/2011 IN C.C.NO:249/2009 DATED 3.5.2011 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE JJJ N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------ O.P.(Crl.) No: 3000 OF 2011 (Q) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the application for joint trial was not allowed by the Court below. Since the complainant in both cases are different the evidences that may have to be adduced would certainly be different. It is also submitted that the evidence has already been started in C.C. NO:249/09 and also in C.C.No: 1836/2008. On going through the complaint in C.C.No:1836/2008 and the complaint in C.C. No:249/09, the complainants are entirely different. Therefore, both cases cannot be ordered to be jointly tried. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that atleast those two cases may be taken up by the Court on the same day. That request also is untenable, since the O.P.(Crl.) No: 3000 OF 2011 (Q) -2- complainant in one case need not wait for the completion of the evidence to be adduced in the other case. Hence, I find no merit in this petition. The petitioner can raise all other contentions before the Court below. This petition is, hence, dismissed. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE jjj