IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1153 of 2010() ------------------------- SC.208/2009 of SPL.COURT SPE/CBI-II & IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.2 --------------------------- AJEESH VIJAYAN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.P.K.VIJAYAN, PAZHAYIDOM, PAINGOTTOR P.O., KADAVOOR VILLAGE, POTHANIKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.R.ANIL SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX SRI.SHYAM ARAVIND SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1153 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010 ORDER Heard both sides. The second accused in S.C.No.208/2009 on the file of the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 326, 395, 308 and 120B read with 149 IPC, challenges Annexure E order dated 29.3.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge declining to recall PW1 for the purpose of further cross examination and to examine the six witnesses shown in the witness schedule filed by the defence and appended to Annexure III order. The main purpose for re-summoning PW1, the injured, was to put certain complaints allegedly made by him against A1 to A3. Apart from the fact that further cross examination of PW1 had been denied by the Sessions Judge as per the earlier orders referred to in the impugned order, there is no record to show that A1 to A3 were summoned to the Police Station pursuant to the said complaints. So, further cross examination of PW1 was unwarranted. However, among the six witnesses cited by the petitioner, witness Crl.M.C. No.1153 of 2010 : 2 : Nos.2, 3 and 6 were cited for production of documents and the other three witnesses were cited for cross examination. The above defence witnesses should have been permitted to be summoned as the accused has the right to adduce defence evidence when called upon to do so under Section 233 Cr.P.C. The further question as to whether questions which are not relevant to the facts in issue should be admitted or not is within the power of the judge when the above witnesses are being examined. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the examination of the witnesses referred to in Annexure III witness schedule appended to the impugned order can be completed on a single day. The said submission is recorded. This Criminal M.C is accordingly allowed in part permitting the petitioner to examine the six witnesses referred to in the witness schedule as adverted above. PW1 shall not however be cross examined further at the instance of the accused. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb