IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 801 of 2009() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/01/2009 IN CMP 4779/2008 IN CC.943/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 11 ------------------------------------------------ 1. HANEEF, S/O.ABDUL REHMAN HAJEE, AGED 37, ARIMALA HOUSE, ARIMALA,BADAJE GRAMAM. 2. KAYYANI @ ABDUL KHADER, AGED 52, S/O.ABDUL REHMAN HAJEE, ARIMALA HOUSE, BADAJE GRAMAM. 3. MAJEED @ ABDUL MAZEEZ, AGED 26, S/O.MONU,ARIMALA HOUSE, BADAJE GRAMAM. 4. ANSAF, S/O.KAYINHI, AGED 23, ARIMALA HOUSE, BADAJE GRAMAM. 5. RAFEEQUE, S/O.MONU, AGED 21, ARIMALA HOUSE, BADAJE GRAMAM. 6. BASHEER, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 20, ARIMALA HOUSE, BADAJE GRAMAM. 7. SIDDIQUE, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 25, ARIMALA HOUSE, BADAJE GRAMAM. 8. ISMAIL, S/O.MAMMALI, AGED 49, ARIMALA HOUSE, BADAJE GRAMAM. 9. ALI, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 23, ARIMALA HOUSE, BADAJE GRAMAM. 10. MAMMED, S/O.MAMMUNHI, AGED 49, GANICHAL HOUSE, ARIMALA HOUSE, BADAJE GRAMAM. 11. A.S.HANEEF, S/O.SHEIK AHAMMED, AGED 37, THAHIRA MANZIL, ARIMALA HOUSE, BADAJE GRAMAM. BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA - (S.H.O.MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 801 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009 O R D E R The petitioners who are accused 1 to 11, out of the 12 accused persons, in C.C. No. 943/2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod arising out of Crime No.215/2007 of Manjeshwar Police Station for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 326, 427, 506 (i) read with section 149 IPC challenge the order dated 12-1-2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing C.M.P. No. 4779/2008 filed by the petitioners under section 220 Cr.P.C. seeking joint trial of the above case along with C.C. No.937/2007, which also arose out of the same incident and pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kasaragod. C.C. No.937/2007 arose out of Crime No.212/2007 of the very same police station. When C.C. No.943/2007 was about to come up for trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, petitioners filed the above petition seeking joint trial of the said case along with C.C. No.937/2007. As per the impugned order, the learned Chief Judicial Crl.R.P. 801/09 2 Magistrate dismissed the petition. Difference of 20 minutes in the time of occurrence in the two cases, difference of one kilo metre between the place of occurrence in the two cases and section 326 IPC additionally included in C.C.No.943/2007 and two more additional accused in that case were highlighted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while dismissing the application for joint trial. Hence, this revision. 2. Even though both the aforesaid cases arose out of the same incident, the fact that C.C. No.943/2007 contains section 326 IPC additionally and there are altogether 12 accused persons whereas in C.C. No.937/2007 there are only 10 accused persons and section 326 IPC is not there. These are sufficient reasons to reject the request for joint trial of both the cases. At the same time, by applying the principle laid down in Samuel Mathai and others V. State of Kerala and another (2007(3) KHC 682), both the cases have to be tried by the same court which should dispose of the same one after the other in quick succession. 3. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and C.C. No.937/2007 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod is transferred to the Chief Judicial Crl.R.P. 801/09 3 Magistrate-I, Kasaragod. The Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Kasaragod is directed to try and dispose of both the cases one after the other by applying the principle in Samual Mathai's case (Supra). This petition is accordingly disposed of . V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. mn.