IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 860 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRMP.583/2009 IN C.C. NO. 123 OF 2009 OF J.F.C.M. PERINTHALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 -------------------------------------- 1. K.MINI, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.HARIDASAN, PARAPPUR HOUSE, ARIKKANDAMPALLIL, THACHINGANATAM P.O., MALAPPURAM. 2. ACHUTHAN NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUMALU AMMA, DO. 3. HARIDASAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, DO. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. USMAN KURIKKAL.O.V., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.CHERIYA KUNJUMUTHY KURIKKAL HAJI, KURIKKAL HOUSE, V.I.P.ROAD, MANCHERI COLLEGE ROAD P.O., MALAPPURAM, MANAGER, THACHINGANDOM HIGH SCHOOL, THACHINGANDOM P.O. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. NO. 860 of 2009 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 13-03-2009 ORDER The revision petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 123 of 2009 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Perinthalmanna challenge the order dated 27-2-2009 passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the application ( Crl.M.P. No. 583 of 2009) filed by the petitioners seeking adjournment of the trial on the ground that the petitioners should be given copies of the CDs before the examination of the complainant. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused who is a teacher in a School run by the complainant had made per se defamatory imputations against the complainant in a speech telecast in a local T.V. channel and that the said speech amounts to defamation of the complainant. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and husband of the first accused. The learned Magistrate has observed that the C.D. in question is not in the custody of the complainant and that two witnesses namely, the news editor, Asianet Satelite Communications Limited and one Ratheesh, Photographer, Gayathri Studio , Crl.R.P. 860 of 2009 -:2:- Kacheripadi, Manjeri have been summoned with a direction to produce the C.D. containing the alleged meeting dated 31-12- 2007. When the complainant is not in custody of the C.D. in question there is no question of the copy of the C.D. being furnished to the accused even before the examination of the complainant. In case, the two witnesses to whom summons has been issued, produce the C.D. before Court, it is open to the prosecution to examine the complainant again to co-relate the complainant's case with reference to the C.D. in which case alone the petitioner can have a right to cross-examine the complainant. On the other hand, if the complainant is not summoned by the prosecution after the production of the C.D. by witnesses, the petitioners can take advantage of the same. In case the contents of the C.D. are admitted in evidence and attempted to be used against the petitioners, I am sure that the learned Magistrate will definitely give the petitioners an opportunity to effectively cross-examine the witnesses, with reference to the contents of the C.D. Reserving this right of the petitioner, this petition is dismissed. Dated this the 13th day of March 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, ani. (JUDGE) Crl.R.P. 860 of 2009 -:3:- ani.