IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2495 of 2009() ----------------------------------- STC.1988/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- RATNAN.K., S/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, PUTHEN VEEDU, MATTANNUR P.O., KOTHERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------------------------------ 1. SREERAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD., THALASSERY BRANCH, REP.BY ITS P.A.HOLDER, MATHEWS ABRAHAM. 2. STATE, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2495 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the accused in S.T.No.1988/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thalassery, filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-VIII order passed by the learned Magistrate in Annexure-VI petition filed under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure to re- open the evidence to examine a witness and to produce documents. Under Anenxure-VIII order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition for re- opening the evidence on the ground that evidence sought to be adduced is not relevant. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after questioning the petitioner under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, sufficient opportunity was not granted to adduce defence evidence and necessity to adduce evidence sought CRMC 2495/09 2 for under Annexure-VI petition was on account of re-calling of first respondent/complainant and production of Annexure-X agreement and in such circumstances, learned Magistrate should have allowed the application. 2. Annexure-VI application filed before the Magistrate does not disclose that petitioner was not given opportunity to adduce evidence. On the other hand, the only reason stated for re-calling the evidence therein is that petitioner has to prove the receipts obtained from first respondent, issued to one Sulochana K.Kaithery, Kuthuparamba pursuant to an agreement entered into by her with the first respondent, regarding the vehicle. But, even when first respondent, after re-calling, was cross-examined, as is clear from Annexure-V, copy of deposition, nothing was asked either about Sulochana or the receipts. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-VIII order, though learned Magistrate was not justified CRMC 2495/09 3 in dismissing an application stating among other reasons that the case is a targeted one. The question whether the case is a targeted one or not should not weigh with the Magistrate, when considering an application for permission to adduce evidence or re-open the evidence. Petitioner is entitled to challenge Annexure-VIII order along with the final order, if he so chooses. Petition is disposed. 30th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv