IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2335 of 2009() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/3/09 IN CMP 1820/2009 IN CC.168/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.K.THANKAPPAN,S/O.KESAVAN,KIZHAKKE VEETTIL,KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE, GURUPURAM, AVALUKUNNU.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT-STATE ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. MRS.K.S.AJITHA,AGED 38,W/O.SAJEEVAN, VAIRATTIL,UDAYAMPEROOR PANCHAYAT,WARD.NO.8, MANNAKUNNAM VILLAGE,POOTHOTTA.P.O. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009 ALONG WITH CRL.MC.2344/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. Nos. 2335 & 2344 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in CC Nos. 168/2007 and 167/2007. But the complainants in both cases are different. The cases are being tried separately. After closing the prosecution case, when the case was posted for defence evidence, petitioner filed CMP No.1820/2009 in CC No.168/2007 and CMP No.1822/2009 in CC No. 167/2007 for joint trial of the cases contending that the same witnesses are to be examined in both the cases. Learned Magistrate rightly dismissed the petition as there cannot be a joint trial of the two cases instituted by two different complainants and that separately tried. This petition is filed challenging that order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petition for joint trial is not maintainable. Learned counsel submitted that Magistrate may be directed to record the evidence at one session as otherwise evidence let in favour of the petitioner may be clarified by further examination in the other case. 3. When the same witnesses are to be examined in two cases for the same accused, though in two cases, taken cognizance at the Crl.M.CNos.2335 &2344/09 -:2:- instance of two different complainants, learned Magistrate can examine the witnesses, if possible, one after other so as to avoid any prejudice to the parties. Petitions are disposed making it clear that though CC No.167/2007 and CC No.168/2007 cannot be tried jointly, as far as possible Magistrate to record the evidence in the two cases in one session so as to avoid any prejudice to the parties. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE ttb