IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3409 of 2009() ------------------------- ST.488/2007 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II,ETTUMANUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- JISHA ANILKUMAR, KARUVELITHAYYIL HOUSE, MAITHARA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE -------------------------------------------- 1. SHAJI M.K., NADACKAL HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY A.M.SHAJI AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, ARAKKAL HOUSE, VATTUKULAM P.O., KADAPPOOR KARA, KANAKKARI VILLAGE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO. 3409 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 22nd October 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in S.T.488/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ettumanoor. After examination of PW1 power of attorney holder of the complainant, Annexure-A4 petition was filed by the complainant which was allowed on cost by Annexure-A7 order. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A7 order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that by Annexure-A4 petition attempt of the complainant is to take away the admissions in the affidavit filed by PW1 in lieu of chief examination by substituting another affidavit which was permitted under Annexure-A7 order and hence, it is to be quashed. 4. On going through Annexure-A7 order, I Crmc 3409/09 2 find that there is no direction that the original affidavit filed by PW1 in lieu of chief examination is substituted by another affidavit. Instead petition was allowed only to the extent of re-calling and examining PW1. I find no necessity to interfere with that portion of the order. If the grievance of the petitioner is that by Annexure-A7 order the original affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination of PW1 will be substituted, it is made clear that it cannot be done. Affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination would form part of the record. If PW1 is re-called and examined, accused is definitely entitled to cross examine him further. Learned Magistrate to dispose the case untrammeled by any observation in the impugned order or the order of this court. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.