IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3950 of 2010() ------------------------- (CRL.R.P. 12/2010 OF SESSIONS COURT, WAYANAD AND CMP 1323/2010 IN C.C. NO.106/07 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, SULTHAN BATHERY) -------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 ---------------------------------------------- 1. K.C.SHAJI, S/O.CHACKO, KULATHIGAL HOUSE, MULLANKOLLY, KIZHAKKE IDINJARAPPALLIYIL POST, PULPALLY. 2. TOMY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSE, MULLANKOLLY POST, ADHIKKARATHIL HOUSE, PULPALLY. 3. S.JYOTHI PRAKASH, S/O.K.R.RAJU, KALLADIKOLLY (H), PALAKOLLY POST, PULPALLY. BY ADVS. SRI.AMJAD ALI SRI.MANSOOR B.H. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE --------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.3950 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 6th December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners, the accused in C.C.106/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Sulthan Bathery filed Annexure-B petition under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure to recall Pws.1,2,4 and 5 for further cross examination, without disclosing any reason much less valid reason. By Annexure-D order, Judicial First Class Magistrate dismissed the petition. Petitioner challenged that order before Sessions Court, Wayanad in Crl.R.P.12/2010. By Annexure-F order the revision was dismissed. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Crmc 3950/10 2 Annexures-D and F orders. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that case originally ended in acquittal and learned Sessions Judge finding that the order of acquittal is unmerited, set aside the order of acquittal and remanded the case for fresh disposal to the Magistrate and in such circumstances, opportunity should have been granted to recall Pws.1, 2, 4 and 5 as sought for. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Annexures-D and F orders, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the revisional Court. Annexure-B petition does Crmc 3950/10 3 not disclose any valid reason for recalling Pws.1,2,4 and 5 who were examined and cross examined earlier. In such circumstances, petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj. Crmc 3950/10 4