IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4607 of 2010() ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/10/2010 IN CRL.MP. NO.737/2010 IN SC.503.2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III), KASARAGODE .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.PRAKASH, S/O.RAGHUVEER RAO, AGED 37 YEARS, BEEJANADUKKA HOUSE, BADIADKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4607 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 3rd December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the sole accused in S.C.503/2004 on the file of Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-III), Kasargod filed C.M.P.512/2010 on 1/3/2010 to adjourn examination of PW16 to enable the defence to assess the validity of his opinion, by application of scientific principles. Petition was dismissed. Petitioner thereafter filed Crl.M.P.737/2010 under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure to recall PW16. It was dismissed on 30/10/2010 by Annexure-A4 order. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexures-A1 and A4 orders. Crmc 4607/10 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. When petitioner sought to defer cross examination of PW16, it was rejected by learned Sessions Judge. Later when a petition was filed under Section 311 to recall PW16, for further cross examination, holding that no justifiable reasons shown, it was dismissed by Annexure-A4 order. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that much prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, as he could not effectively cross examine PW16. 4. On hearing the learned counsel , I do not find it necessary to interfere with Annexure-A4 order. Learned counsel submitted that case is posted for defence evidence. If Crmc 4607/10 3 petitioner files an application at the defence stage for permission to recall PW16 and cross examine him further, learned Sessions Judge shall permit the petitioner to recall and cross examine PW16 further. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.