IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1939 of 2009 -------------------------------- CC.6/2004 of SPL.COURT SPE/CBI-II & IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ........................................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.3 -------------------------------------------- P.PREM KUMAR, S/O.PONNAPPAN PILLAI, ADVOCATE, `LAKSHMI', KARUVELIPPADI, KOCHI-5. 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 --------------------------------------------- 1. CBI, COCHIN, REP. BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.1939 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 23rd day of July,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the third accused in C.C.6/2004 on the file of Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam. At the defence stage, petitioner filed Annexure A witness list to examine ten witnesses shown therein. By Annexure B order learned Special Judge permitted to examine only witnesses 5 to 9. Learned counsel pointed out that witnesses 1 and 2 are sought to be examined to speak about the actual practice and procedure followed in his office including the management of the affairs. Witnesses 3,4 and 10 were not allowed to be examined for the reason that attempt is to prove the unethical practice of canvassing clients through the agents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that these are not sufficient ground to disallow the petitioner to examine the witnesses. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI submitted that even if the witnesses are to be examined a time frame is to be fixed. 2. I find no justification for the learned Crl.M.C.1939/2009 2 Special Judge to disallow the examination of the witnesses sought to be examined when he is entitled to a fair trial which including examination of witnesses on his side, at his choice. The question whether the witnesses are to be examined to depose about the unethical practice followed by the petitioner is not a valid ground to disallow the prayer. If after recording their evidence, the Special Judge finds that petitioner as an Advocate was following unethical practice warranting disciplinary action by the Bar Council learned Special Judge is free to forward the copies of the depositions to the Bar Council for appropriate action. Annexure B order is therefore quashed. The Special Judge is directed to permit petitioner to examine the witnesses as sought for. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006