IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 789 of 2001() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/06/2001 IN C.M.P NO.3025/2001 IN CC.159/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KATTAKADA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- VELUKUTTY, S/O. MOSHA, MALACHAVAN, MUKKAMPALAMOODU, THERIVILA VEEDU, KARODE MURI, VILAPPIL VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. MR. SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY MR. B.BALAKRISHNA MENON RESPONDENTS:- ------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL. R.P. NO. 789/2001 : 2 : ORDER ON CRL.M.P. NO. 3660/2001 IN CRL. R.P. NO. 789/2001 DISMISSED 04.06.2009 sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO. 789 OF 2001 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner. Challenge is against order dated 7.6.2001 of the Court below refusing to close evidence applying of the decision in Raja Deo Sharma V. State of Bihar [1999(1) KLT 173]. Counsel for petitioner contends that on the facts of the case evidence ought to have been closed as in spite of warrant issued to witnesses, they did not turn up. 2. The decision in Raja Deo Sharma's case has been overruled by a larger bench of the Supreme Court in Ramachandra Rao V. State of Kerala [2002(2) KLT 189]. In paragraphs 28 and 29 of that decision it is stated that no outer limit can be prescribed for recording evidence. In this case, learned magistrate has stated that witnesses were present on some occasions but they had to be bound either because the law officer was not present or due to want of time or there was a request from the defence counsel. Learned magistrate has stated valid reasons for not closing the evidence. There is no Crl.R.P.No.789/2001 2 reason to interfere in the order under challenge. Revision petition is dismissed. Learned magistrate is directed to expedite the trial and disposal of the case. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd