IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1424 of 2001() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 8006/2001 IN CC.63/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/FIRST ACCUSED: --------------------- JAYAKUMAR @ KUMAR, S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, HOUSE NO.14, PEDIKKATTU MURI, CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE, HAILING FROM KUZHIVILA VEEDU, U.P.V/453, KOTTAMUKKU JUNCTION, PEDIKKATTU MURI, CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.A.K.HARIDAS RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER/STATE: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.1424 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008. ORDER First accused in C.C.No.63 of 1998 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram who was facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C.No.63 of 1998 filed C.M.P.No.8006 of 2001 to close the evidence in the light of the decision in Shaji v. State (2001(1) KLT 733). Learned Magistrate observed that the plea of the accused were recorded on 16.11.1999, witnesses were regularly attending the court, one of the witnesses have been examined in part, there was no laches on the part of the prosecution and hence, the petition was dismissed. First accused is aggrieved and hence, this revision. 2. Heard counsel for revision petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 3. The decision referred in the order under challenge explained the decision in Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (1999 (1) KLT 173- SC). The decision is Raj Deo Sharma's case has been overruled by a larger bench of the Supreme Court in Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002 (2) KLT 189). Therefore, the question of stopping further proceedings does not any more arise. Revision petitioner has to face the trial. Crl.R.P.No.1424/2001 2 Revision Petition is dismissed. Crl.M.P.No.6811 of 2001 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.1424/2001 3 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.1424 of 2001 ORDER 24th September, 2008