IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2011 / 9TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 621 of 2011 ---------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2010 IN CMP 5208/2010 IN CC.450/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- M.G.SREENIVASAN, S/O.MALAPPRATH GOPALAN, KOLAZHI VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): STATE ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 621 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2011 ORDER The accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. is the revision petitioner. In this revision petition, he challenges the order dated 19.10.2010 in CMP No.5208 of 2010 in C.C.No.450 of 2007 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur by which the learned Magistrate dismissed his petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall PW1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the counsel for the petitioner in the trial court was laid up and hence, PW1 could not be cross-examined. Thus, according to the learned counsel, if PW1 is not re-called and allowed to be cross- examined, it will adversely affect the defence and resultantly, the accused will be prejudiced. 3. The offence involved in the above case is under Section 420 I.P.C. As seen from the cause title itself, the Calendar Case Crl.R.PNO.621 of 2011 :-2-: pertains to the year 2007. From the order impugned, it is obvious that PW1 was originally examined in chief on 21.4.2009 and as the counsel for the defence was absent, the case was adjourned for cross- examination of PW1 on 22.4.2009 considering the fact that PW1 had to return abroad. But, on 22.4.2009 also, the counsel for the defence did not appear. As per the impugned order, it appears that the predecessor of the learned Magistrate, who issued the impugned order, has recorded that the witness wants to leave the country on 27.4.2009 and it is also observed by the learned Magistrate that by order dated 22.4.2009, the accused was trying to protract the matter. From the above, it is crystal clear that even if counsel for the defence was absent on 21.4.2009 and on 22.4.2009, due to health reasons, no request was made to recall PW1 on or before 26.4.2009. Now PW1 is in abroad. On a query put to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is ready to pay the cost to PW1 in case he is recalled for subjecting him to cross-examination, the counsel Crl.R.PNO.621 of 2011 :-3-: answered negatively. As the Calendar Case pertains to the year 2007, and as there was no stay of the trial, probably the trial would have been proceeded further and the petitioner is not in a position to say anything about that aspect also. Therefore, according to me, there is no scope for any interference with the order impugned at this belated stage. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge MBS/ Crl.R.PNO.621 of 2011 :-4-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:.. Crl.R.PNO.621 of 2011 :-5-: