IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3496 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP.5941/2009 IN CC 70/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- HARIDAS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, KALLUKAL VEEDU, MUTTAKUZHI, ARUVAPULAM MURI, ARUVAPULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SRI.ANZAR BASHEER RESPONDENTS: CR.PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION. 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3496 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.70 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Pathanamthitta. The Sub Inspector of Police Konni Police Station in Crime No.287 of 2003 prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. It is submitted that the evidence of the prosecution was over and the revision petitioner was called upon to adduce evidence. In his attempt to adduce evidence, a witness list with the name of the one witness was submitted on 1/10/2009. The lower court ordered the revision petitioner to take steps in two days. As per the order impugned the revision petitioner didn't comply with. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner it is because of the indifferent attitude of the Junior Superintendent, the steps could not be taken. However it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that he is even prepared to produce the witness before the court and that the case is now posted to 23/11/2009 for hearing and in the event Crl.R.P.No.3496 of 2009 2 the case is disposed without the defence evidence, justice would be denied to the revision petitioner for no good reason. I find some merit in the submission. In the above circumstance, I find that it would be in the better interest of justice that the revision petitioner be allowed to examine his witness. 2. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. While setting aside the order impugned dated 4/9/2009 in Criminal M.P.No.5941 of 2009, the petition would stand allowed. The revision petitioner is permitted to produce the witness on the next posting date. On production of the witness, he shall be given an opportunity to examine the witness as part of the defence evidence. In the event of failure to produce the witness, this revision petition would stand dismissed. However, it is clarified that this order would no way be a bar for granting adjournment by the trial court for reasons satisfied to it. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj