IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3654 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.417/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ----------------------------- 1. BIJU JOSEPH, PALUPADAVIL, VELLAPPADU, PALA. 2. PRAKASH M., VETTOM VEED, VELLAPPADU, PALA. 3. T.P.JOSEPH, PUTHIYAPARAMBIL, VELLAPPADU, PALA. 4. KURIAN.P.P., PAYYAPPALLIL, VELLAPPADU, PALA. 5. ANTHRAOSE @ KUTTAI, MATTATHIL, VELLAPPADU, LALAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR SMT.LAYA SIMON RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 3654 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 6th day of September,2010 ORDER Petitioners the accused in C.C.417/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pala filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure A8 order passed by the learned Magistrate reopening the evidence and recalling PW1 and adduce further evidence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that the learned Magistrate illegally permitted the prosecution to let in further evidence after the defence evidence was closed and in the interest of justice, the order is to be quashed. The argument is that the entire documents are before the court and evidence Crl.M.C.3654/2010 2 was also let in and the court has to decide the case in the light of the evidence and should not have permitted the prosecution to let in further evidence to fill up the lacuna. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Annexure A8 order, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order when the learned Magistrate has exercised the power under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for arriving a just decision in the case. 5. If the grievance of the petitioners is against prosecution adducing further evidence, they are at liberty to cross examine the witnesses and also let in further evidence, at the defence stage. If the petitioners seek permission to adduce further evidence, learned Magistrate to grant the same. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006