IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3134 of 2009()
1. CHHAGAN RAJ RANKA, S/O.DHUDAJI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SHRI.ANARAJ RANKA, AGED 48,
... Respondent
2. ANIL METHA, TRIPLE'S INSTRUMENT CO.,
3. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :16/10/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No. 3134 OF 2009
===========================
Dated this the 16th day of October,2009
ORDER
Petitioner is the complainant in C.C.203/2000 on
the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam.
After his examination and examination of witnesses
petitioner filed Annexure A2 petition under section 311
of Code of Criminal Procedure to recall PW1 and to
enable the petitioner to produce the documents. By
Annexure A3 order, the petition was dismissed. This
petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash Annexure A3 order and to allow
Annexure A2 petition.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
was heard.
3. As Annexure A2 petition shows that it was
filed when the case stood posted for questioning under
section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to verify
the stage of the case, registry was directed to get the
details of the posting. It is reported that on
5.10.2009 the case was posted to 13.10.2009 recording
that complainant is present, the second accused absent
Crl.M.C.3134/2009 2
and an application is filed on his behalf, the witness was
present and the counsel appearing for the petitioner was
absent and hence for cross examination of PW4 it was
adjourned to 13.10.2009. If that be the case, the
statement in Annexure A2 that the case is posted for
questioning under section 313of Code of Criminal Procedure
cannot be correct.
4. When a petition is filed under section 311 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, it is for the petitioner to satisfy
the learned Magistrate that for a just decision of the
case, the power available to the court under the section
is invoked, so as to recall the witness or produce
documents. Annexure A2 does not show for what purpose the
witness is to be recalled or the documents are to be
produced. In such circumstances, I find no reason to
interfere with the order dismissing Annexure A2 petition.
It appears that the evidence is not closed. If a proper
application is filed, learned Magistrate to consider the
same and pass appropriate orders in it in accordance with
law.
Petition is dimissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Crl.M.C.3134/2009 3
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).NO. /06
---------------------
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006