IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4675 of 2010() ------------------------------------ ( C.M.P NO. 9038/2010 IN ST.NO. 194/2007 OFJFCM COURT PALA ) --------------------- PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- M.O.JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, MANATHARA VEED, MATTAKKARA, AKALAKUNNAM, NOW RESIDING AT SREENLAYAM VEED, NEAR PALA TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, LALAM KARA, LALAM VILLAGE, PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM SMT. MERRY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JOSHY GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, PUTHIYATHU VEED, KOZHUVANAL P.O., KEZHUVAMKULAM, PULIYANNOOR, PALA, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4675 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER By Annexure-A4 order, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pala permitted the complainant to adduce further evidence, after closing the defence evidence. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A4 order contending that said order was passed in Annexure-A2 petition, which is a petition to review the earlier order. As learned Magistrate has no power to review the earlier order, Annexure-A4 order is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that as learned Magistrate could not have reviewed the earlier order, Annexure-A4 order is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel also argued that it is not a speaking order and it does not disclose for what purpose complainant was permitted to adduce further evidence. 3. Though Annexure-A2 petition is filed to review the previous order, by Annexure-A4 order, learned Magistrate has not reviewed the previous order. CRMC 4675/10 2 Annexure-A4 order shows that finding that in the interest of justice complainant is to be permitted to adduce further evidence, complainant was permitted to adduce further evidence. It was also made clear by the learned Magistrate that accused is also entitled to adduce further evidence, if necessary. 4. Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure enables the Magistrate to permit the complainant to adduce further evidence, if it is just and necessary at any stage. The order shows that learned Magistrate, finding that in the interest of justice complainant is to be permitted to adduce further evidence, permission was granted to adduce further evidence. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with Annexure-A4 order. Petition is dismissed. 29th November, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv