IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 558 of 2007()
1. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O. RAGHAVAN NADAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUDHEER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :01/03/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 558 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2007
O R D E R
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the
petitioner, who is the accused in a prosecution under Section 55(a) of
the Kerala Abkari Act. The trial has commenced. Witnesses were
examined. Prosecution evidence was closed. The petitioner appears
to have filed two petitions before the learned Sessions Judge. First of
those petitions was for transfer of the case from that court to any
other court. It was dismissed. The second prayer was to recall PWs.
2 and 4 for further cross examination. It was urged that the answers
have not been properly recorded and therefore the witnesses have to
be recalled.
2. The learned Sessions Judge indulgently permitted the
petitioner to recall the witnesses for further cross examination on
condition that he deposits witnesses bata and process fee within three
days. It is submitted that the amount which is liable to be paid comes
to Rs.600/- The petitioner, without making the payment, has rushed
to this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C.No. 558 of 2007 2
3. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that going by Rule 206(1)(c) of the Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice, for
witnesses who have been compelled to attend court by a process issued
under Section 311 Cr.P.C., bata has to be paid by the Court and the
petitioner has no obligation to pay the expenses. I find absolutely no merit
in this contention. The petitioner had already been granted opportunity to
cross examine the witnesses. The petitioner is seeking the luxury of an
opportunity to further cross examine the very same witnesses. It is in these
circumstances that the learned Sessions Judge directed that bata must be
deposited by the petitioner for such further cross examination of PWs. 2 and
4. The court had invoked its powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the
witnesses at the instance of the petitioner, who was already given the
opportunity to cross examine those witnesses. Rule 206(1)(c) does not
evidently relate to the circumstances which are available in this case.
Where a court on its own want to summon witnesses under Section 311
Cr.P.C. bata has to be paid by the court. The literal interpretation that in all
cases where recall of the witnesses at the instance of the petitioner, who had
already cross examined them, is made under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further
Crl.M.C.No. 558 of 2007 3
cross examination, bata must be paid by Court, to say the least, cannot be
accepted.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a further
grievance that a readable copy of the deposition has not been made
available to the petitioner. He had applied specifically for readable copy,
but only a photostat copy has been made available. The counsel prays that
manuscript copy of the deposition of the witnesses may be directed to be
given. The learned Sessions Judge must specifically consider this request
of the petitioner for manuscript copy on the ground that the photostat copy
is not readable and pass appropriate orders.
5. This Crl.M.C. is hence dismissed with the above observations.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm