IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 824 of 2011() ----------------------------------- (CRMP 24/2011 IN SC.NO.439/2008 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA) CRIME NO.30/2007 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- 1. KURIAKOSE, S/O.KURIAKOSE, NADUTHOTTAM VEEDU, ANAVIRATTY KARA, VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE. 2. TIJU, S/O.KURIAKOSE, NADUTHOTTAM VEEDU, ANAVIRATTIKARA, VELATHUVAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.30/2007 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.824 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in S.C. No.439 of 2008 of the court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha challenging the common order dated March 11, 2011 on CMP Nos.24 and 25 of 2011. Those petitions are filed by the prosecution to reopen the case for further evidence, recall P.W.5 and summon three more witnesses for the prosecution after the defence evidence was over. Dispute concerned the handwriting on some of the documents and labels affixed on the material objects. After defence evidence was over prosecution wanted to examine three more witnesses and recall P.W.5. Rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners those petitions were allowed. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that in the witness schedule (Annexure II[a]) submitted by the prosecution, it is not stated for what purpose the three witnesses who are not even questioned by the Investigating Officer are being examined. It is also stated that Annexure-II, petition by which the summoning of additional witnesses is prayed for also does not mention the point sought to be proved by the said witnesses. Learned Public CRL.M.C. No.824 of 2011 -: 2 :- Prosecutor in response pointed out that in Annexure-I, there is reference to the role allegedly played by the witnesses who are sought to be summoned. According to the learned counsel, Annexure-I was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 2. When a witness is sought to be summoned, be it for the prosecution or defence it is necessary that prosecution/defence must state the point to be proved through the witness so that the opposite side has the opportunity to know the purpose for which the witness is being examined. Unfortunately, Annexure-II(a), witness list or Annexure-II, application does not mention the point sought to be proved through the witnesses required to be summoned. In that situation there is some weight in the contention of petitioners that they will be put to prejudice since they are not told the purpose for which the witnesses are being examined. I am inclined to accept that contention. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Impugned common order on C.M.P. Nos.24 and 25 of 2011 in S.C. No.439 of 2008 of the court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha is set aside and those petitions are remitted CRL.M.C. No.824 of 2011 -: 3 :- to the court below for fresh decision after giving opportunity to the prosecution to state the point sought to be proved through the witnesses sought to be summoned and giving a copy of that statement to the petitioner and after hearing both sides. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv