IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3555 of 2008()
1. KOYYODAN SAHADEVAN MASTER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :23/09/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3555 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of September 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner is the 14th accused facing indictment in a
prosecution under Section 302 I.P.C. The accused persons were
allegedly members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of
the common object of the unlawful assembly, they had allegedly
thrown explosive substance at the victims who had travelled in a
jeep. Driver of the jeep lost control of the vehicle and the vehicle
went over to a rubber plantation on the side of the road. As the
victims were getting out of the vehicle, one more explosive
substance/bomb was thrown at the victim resulting in injury to
many. Two of the victims succumbed to the injuries. One of the
passengers in the vehicle, allegedly a victim of the crime who
was admitted to the hospital, while at the hospital allegedly
lodged the F.I.S on the basis of which the crime was registered.
2. Investigation was completed. Final report was filed.
Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of
Session. Charges were framed. Trial has commenced.
Crl.M.C.No.3555/08 2
3. In the course of the trial, when PW1/the first
informant was examined, a contention was raised that signature
of PW1 appearing in the F.I.S and in the summons issued do not
exactly tally and they were dissimilar. From this, the contention
appears to have been raised that the F.I.S does not really contain
the signature of PW1 and that some other person, a local
political functionary (the alleged motive is political animosity)
had signed the F.I.S. When the matter reached the defence
stage, an application was filed that the F.I.S may be sent to the
expert along with admitted signatures to examine the same and
render an opinion on the authenticity of the said signature. The
application was opposed. The learned Sessions Judge, by the
impugned order, rejected the prayer to send the F.I.S to the
expert. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned
order. He prays that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be
invoked to quash the impugned order.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in
detail. At this stage of the proceedings, I shall not hazard any
authentic opinion on the genuineness of the signature appearing
in the F.I.S. Notwithstanding the fact that the learned Sessions
Crl.M.C.No.3555/08 3
Judge, in the impugned order, had made certain observations,
the same should not be held to bind the learned Sessions Judge
and he must also consider the challenge against the F.I.S in the
light of the totality of circumstances before passing the judgment
in the sessions case.
5. I take note of the fact that the impugned order is an
interlocutory order. Law frowns upon challenge against
interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings
before the court concerned. A person aggrieved by such an
interlocutory order will certainly have to wait till the final order
is passed in the proceedings and such interlocutory order has
also to be challenged along with the final orders in a properly
instituted appeal against the final order. In an exceptional case
where the compelling demands of justice so persuade the court,
this court certainly has jurisdictional competence to invoke
Section 482 Cr.P.C to interfere with even an interlocutory order.
But I am not satisfied that the petitioner must be given the
option to challenge the impugned interlocutory order in this
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am satisfied that it will
only be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to challenge the
Crl.M.C.No.3555/08 4
impugned order, if such challenge is necessary, later on along
with the final judgment to be passed in the sessions case by the
learned Judge.
6. In the result, this petition is dismissed. I may hasten
to observe that I have not intended to express any final opinion
on the question whether the signature appearing in the F.I.S is
really that of PW1 or not. The learned Sessions Judge must also
consider this contention in the light of the totality of inputs at
the appropriate stage. The option of the petitioner to challenge
the impugned order shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of
this petition.
7. With this observation, this petition is dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.3555/08 5
Crl.M.C.No.3555/08 6
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008