IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3797 of 2010() ---------------------------------- (IN CRMP.190/2010 IN C.C.NO.284/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS COURT-IV, PUNALUR.) ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED IN CC NO.284/09 --------------------------------------------------------------- SUDHAKARAN PILLAI, AJAYABHAVAN, EZHAMKULAM, PARAKODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR SRI.KRISHNAN.S.RAJ SMT.A.R.SINDHU SRI.M.JAFARKHAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.C.BIJUKUMAR, CHANDRAVILASAM, KAMUKUMCHERY, PIRAVANTHOOR, P.O.KOLLAM DISTRICT - 689 696. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J ........................................... CRL.M.C..NO. 3797 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER,2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.284 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -IV, Punalur, filed Crl.M.P.190 of 2010 under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to examine four witnesses on his side. By Annexure 7 order, learned Magistrate dismissed that application. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure 7 order. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the first respondent complainant were heard. 2. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that though petitioner did not take steps on 2.7.2010, the day on which the case was posted for defence evidence, he had taken steps on 12.7.2010 and learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the application. The learned counsel argued that the second witness is the wife of the petitioner who could not be examined on that day due to illness and medical certificate was produced to prove that she was laid up and in such circumstances, learned Magistrate should have allowed CRMC 3797/2010 2 the petitioner to examine the witnesses. Learned counsel also submitted that a prayer to examine Cws 3 and 4 was not allowed by learned Magistrate earlier, as he had not taken steps on 2.7.2010. 3. The order refusing to permit examination of Cws 3 and 4, was not challenged. Therefore, by filing a petition under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner cannot indirectly get an order reviewing the earlier order passed by learned Magistrate. As far as the first two witnesses are concerned, though petitioner did not take steps on 2.7.2010, he had taken steps as against one witness on 12.7.2010 and sought time to produce other witnesses. Learned counsel appearing for first respondent submitted that first respondent has no objection for examining those witnesses. 4. In such circumstances, petition is disposed directing Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Punalur, to permit the petitioner to examine witnesses 1 and 2 shown in the witness list by exercising the powers under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk