IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 303 of 2008() ----------------------------- ST.2366/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV (MOBILE COURT), TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ACCUSED --------------------------------- RAJESH NAIR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.K.SADASIVAN NAIR, SIVALAYAM, CHACKAI, PETTAH P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJIV.C.KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- 1. K.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,S/O.KUNJURAMAN NAIR RESIDING AT ASWATHY BHAVAN, CHAVADINADA, VENGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAT ALI FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.1070/2008 IN CRL.R.P.NO.303/2008 16.9.2008 DISMISSED Sd/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE /true copy/ P.S to Judge M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 303 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 16th day of September,2008 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in S.T.2366/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner after his examination as DW1 filed a witness list to examine two witnesses. It was rejected by the learned Magistrate as per order dated 25.1.2008. Learned Magistrate disallowed the prayer for examination of the witnesses on two grounds. One reason was that the name of the persons sought to be examined were not disclosed even when the complainant was examined or petitioner was examined. Secondly it was found that the purpose of examination of the witnesses was not mentioned in the witness list. The order is challenged in this petition filed under 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner CRRP 303/2008 2 was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel for petitioner is that learned Magistrate should not have shut out the evidence and thereby denied opportunity to the petitioner to examine the witnesses to prove his case. Petitioner has not disclosed in the revision petition that he had filed Crl.R.P.26/2008 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram challenging the dismissal of the application filed under section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure to examine the witnesses. That revision was dismissed on 13.8.2008. Though petitioner is entitled to examine witnesses, when the witness list does not disclose the purpose of examination of the witnesses, learned Magistrate was justified in rejecting the permission sought for to examine the witnesses. Moreover the names of the witnesses were not suggested to the complainant when examined as PW1 and were also not disclosed by the petitioner when examined as DW1. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to CRRP 303/2008 3 interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006