Ambikuttan @ Ambili vs The State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 8 of 2010()


1. AMBIKUTTAN @ AMBILI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :14/01/2010

 O R D E R
          M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

           ------------------------------------------
               Crl.M.C.NO.8 OF 2010
           ------------------------------------------
           Dated 14th          January 2010


                         O R D E R

           Petitioner               is      the      accused  in

S.C.1287/2004       on        the          file        Assistant

Sessions Judge, Nedumangad. According to

the petitioner charge was framed for the

offence under Section 366 A of Indian

Penal Code and after closing the evidence,

including the defence evidence, at the time

of hearing the case, learned Sessions Judge

adjourned the case for amendment of the

charge without a speaking order. This

petition is filed under Section 482 of Code

of Criminal Procedure to quash the said

order.

2. Learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and learned Public

Crmc 8/10
2

Prosecutor were heard.

3. Argument of the learned counsel is

that the prosecution evidence in the case was

closed on 30/10/2009 and the petitioner was

questioned under Section 313 of Code of

Criminal Procedure on 10/11/2009 and defence

evidence was closed on 4/12/2009 and at the

time of hearing, case was adjourned stating

that amendment of the charge is required,

without showing what amendment is necessary and

on the what basis and therefore, the order is

to be quashed. Apart from producing Annexure-

A1 proceeding paper, petitioner did not produce

any material including the charge. It cannot be

said that a Sessions Judge is not entitled to

amend the charge after closing of the evidence,

if interest of justice warrants, as provided

under the Code. The question of a speaking

Crmc 8/10
3

order would arise, when the charge is being

amended. Petitioner is not entitled to

challenge the order passed by learned Sessions

Judge adjourning the case finding that

amendment of the charge is required. It is for

the learned Sessions Judge to decide what

amendment in the charge is necessary. If

advised, petitioner is entitled to challenge

the order amending the charge.

Petition is dismissed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.