High Court Kerala High Court

Ajaya Ghosh vs State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
Ajaya Ghosh vs State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2238 of 2010()


1. AJAYA GHOSH, S/O.A.V.VASU
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :29/06/2010

 O R D E R
                       V.RAMKUMAR, J.
                -------------------------------------
                 Crl.M.C.No.2238 of 2010
                --------------------------------------
           Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010

                              ORDER

Heard both sides.

Petitioner who is the sole accused in C.C.No.148/2008 on

the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Kunnamangalam for offences punishable under Sections 354

& 506(ii) of I.P.C. filed C.M.P.No.538/2010 before the court

below under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure

praying to re-call PW.1 who was examined in chief on

19/8/2009 and who was not cross-examined by the defence

counsel as he was held up somewhere and his junior was

unwilling to conduct the cross-examination. The said petition

dismissed as per Annexure-I order dated 28/1/2010 (the date

of the order is wrongly shown as 19/8/2009 instead of

28/1/2010 which is a mistake as has been clarified by the

learned Magistrate). The learned Magistrate has observed

that the application was part of a dilatory tactics and that

opportunities had been given on earlier postings to cross-

examine PW.1. According to the petitioner three of the

adjournments earlier were due to the fact that there was no

Crl.M.C.No.2238/2010
: 2 :

sitting before the court below. Whatever may be the reason

for not cross-examining PW1 earlier, the fact remains that

PW.1 who is the main prosecution witness in the case was not

cross-examined. It is also a fact that the petitioner applied for

an opportunity only at the fag end of the trial. Hence I am

inclined to put the petitioner on terms. In case the petitioner

deposits before the court below a sum of Rupees one thousand

by way of cost payable to the State within two weeks from

today the petitioner shall be entitled to cross-examine PW.1

whose witness bata shall also burne by the petitioner.

Annexure-I order is accordingly set aside. The petitioner is

given an opportunity to cross-examine PW.1.

This Criminal M.C. is allowed as above.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

skj