IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 397 of 2009() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/01/2009 IN CMP. 15179 /2008 IN CC.201/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. RAMANI, W/O. SIVANKUTTY "REMANIKA" ELAMPALLEL, PALLICKAL, PAYYANALLOOR P.O.,PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. SARATHLAL, S/O. SIVANKUTTY "REMANIKA" ELAMPALLEL, PALLICKAL, PAYYANALLOOR PO,PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. VIJAYAN, ENIVILA VEEDU, MANAPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY , TALUK. 4. AJITHA ENIVILA VEEDU, MANAPALLY VILLAGE KARUNAGAPALLY, TALUK. 5. SYAMALA, S/O. SIVANKUTTY "REMANIKA" ELAMPALLEL, PALLICKAL,PAYYANALLOOR PO, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE ............................................... Crl.R.P. No.397 of 2009 ............................................... Dated: 10th February, 2009 O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners who are accused Nos. 4 to 7 and 10 in Crime No. 261/CR/2000 for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. As per C.M.P. No.15179/08 the petitioners sought permission under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. To summon P.W1 and Pws 42 and 43 for the purpose of contradicting P.W.1 (the de facto complainant) with regard to his previous statement in Crime No. 761 of 2000 of Adoor Police Station. The said request was disallowed by the Magistrate placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Babu - 1999 (2) KLT 301. 2. This case and the aforementioned case arising out of Crime No. 761 of 2000 were held to be distinct and different cases on an earlier occasion by this Court at the instance of the very same revision petitioners. Hence, the request made by the petitioners for summoning P.Ws 42 and 43 of whom P.W.43 is the investigating officer for the purpose of contradicting P.W.1 with regard to his previous statement Crl.R.P. No. 397 of 2009 -:2:- given in Crime No. 61 of 2000 was rightly rejected by the learned Magistrate. The court below has, however, allowed the request of the petitioner to recall P.W.41. I see no reason to interfere with the discretion validly exercised by the Magistrate as per the impugned order dated 6-1-2009. This petition is accordingly, dismissed. Dated, this the 10th day of February, 2009. Sd/-V. Ramkumar, Judge. ani /true copy/