IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2289 of 2009 --------------------------------------- CMP.2520/2009 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: JOMON PUTHENPURACKAL, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, NEENDOR PO, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SR. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.MANU TOM RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SMT.R.GEETHA, CHIEF CHEMICAL EXAMINER, CHEMICAL EXAMINER'S LABORATORY, THIRUVANTHAPURAM. 3. SMT. M.CHITHRA, ANALYST, CHEMICAL EXAMINERS LABORATORY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI FOR R1 ADV.SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. FOR R3 ADV.SRI.G.P.SHINOD FOR R3 ADV.SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2289 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER This petition is filed by the complainant in C.C. No.111/2007 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram to quash the adverse criticisms/remarks as against him in Annexure-A order and for issuing appropriate direction to the court to dispose the case. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that in Annexure-A order, which was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram in Malayalam, unnecessary remarks/observations were made based on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C)No.35590/2007 and when the said observations are challenged before the Apex Court and it stand stayed, it should not have been made. Petitioner also apprehends that the complaint would be disposed without examining all the witnesses in view of the directions issued in the impugned order. CRMC 2289/2009 2 4. When witnesses to be examined are official witnesses, complainant can only take steps to see that witnesses are present and examined before the court. Though in Annexure-A order learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had cautioned the petitioner that leniency will not be shown if steps are not taken, it cannot be interpreted as a direction that if witnesses are not present, the complaint will be disposed without their examination. As stated earlier, petitioner is only expected to take steps as provided under Code of Criminal Procedure or Criminal Rules of Practice. If petitioner has taken steps, Magistrate cannot summarily dispose the complaint without examining the witnesses. When the observations in W.P.(C)No.35590/2007 are challenged before the Apex Court and stand stayed, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not justified in making remarks based on the said decision. Moreover, the said remarks are unnecessary for the purpose of proceeding with the complaint. Hence, petition is disposed. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law making it clear that CRMC 2289/2009 3 if petitioner takes steps in accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure or Criminal Rules of Practice, the complaint shall not be disposed summarily and opportunity to examine the witnesses shall not be denied. The observations in Annexure-A order, based on the decision in W.P.(C)No.35590/2007, which are unnecessary for the purpose of the order passed on 12.6.2009, are expunged. Learned Magistrate to dispose the case as expeditiously as possible. 2nd November, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv