IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3392 of 2009 --------------------------------------- CC.1233/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: HAMEED AKKARAMAL, S/O.AHAMMED AKKARAMMAL, AKKARAMMAL HOUSE, VADAKARAMUKKU, BALLA, KADAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ABDUL KAREEM POOCHAKKAL, S/O.MOIDU HAJI, NAZAR MANZIL, BALLA KADAPPURAM, BALLA VILLAGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3392 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1233/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Hosdrug. After closing the evidence, petitioner filed C.M.P.No.3271/2009, a petition to recall PW1 for cross- examination, which was dismissed under Annexure-4 order. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-4 order contending that learned Magistrate should have granted an opportunity to cross-examine PW1. 2. Annexure-4 order shows that PW1 was examined as early as on 12.6.2009. For cross-examination, adjournment was sought for and granted. On that day, it was reported that there was no cross-examination. Evidently, there was an attempt to settle the dispute. The case was thereafter posted to 24.6.2009 for questioning the petitioner under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. As it was represented that the attempt to settle the dispute did not materialise, CRMC 3392/09 2 after series of adjournments, the case was finally posted for adducing defence evidence to 6.7.2009. It was at that stage petition was filed to cross examine PW1. 3. Learned Magistrate was justified in holding that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner, when the order shows that PW1, who is to be cross-examined, if the petition is allowed, is not in India. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was asked whether petitioner would meet the expenses of PW1 to return back to India for the purpose of cross- examination. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner cannot afford it. In such circumstances, I find no justification for interfering with Annexure-4 order. Petitioner is entitled to challenge Annexure-4 order along with the final order, if it goes against him. Petition is dismissed. 23rd October, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv