- 1..
IN' THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29th my OF JULY, 2009
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'i'ICE SUI.-EHASH B.AIT)I
CRIMINAL PETITION N0.967lgO(}9 H
BETWEEN:
1 MR. M.S.KUMAR
S] O SELVARAJ I
AGED 40 YEARS
K.K.T'YRES, VIVEKANANDA CIRCLE, '
MADIKERI ROAD, SOMWARPIJQTI
SOMVARPETTALUK. L» -
" ...i':'E'I'l'I'2ONER
(By Sri : u.s.Y0GEsi:.'_:1§;--3Ms§12 :'§:.AASS_Oi€3'iATES, ADvs.3
2
la
15?
1 KZG. KEERTH1Ku::agAR-»--..
S10 ::3ANAPz'x'FHI ,
AGE[::..ABC)U'.I' 3ca'%z.EAgs%V.T_ .
'r.M.c.' SI-{OP no.4, <::..:.U13_ :-20:19,
SOMWAR'-'f'ET. " "
" RESPONDENT
1′ ~«::_ 1éi.P'” i%*i:..§§a/U/s.4s2 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PIfTl’FIQNERv–vPRAY¥NG THAT THIS HGNBLE comer MAY BE PLEASIII)
TO ‘~r3g*r_ ASIDE ‘i’HE-WORDER DATES 25.03.2003 PASSED BY THE
” _ _ coum’ CF’ .JMF{:;_ SOMWARPEP IN c.<:.No.597/04.
""VPE'.i'4i":FI{C)I'-1' COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS BAY, THE
1. jg ‘CGEJRT MADE7~THE FOLLOWING:
0RD£R
Petitioner has called in question the order dated 26.8.2008
A g,assea by the J.M.F.C., Somwarpfit. in c.<:.No.6o7/2004.
-2-
2. Petitioner had filed an application under Section 311 of
Cr.P.(.1. fnteralia seeiflng recailing of PW} for further cross
examination. The said application has been rejected by the Ieanned
Magistrate.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
wanted to confmnt some documents ta PW 1, howezreifhe tie.’ _
so when he was cmss–exan1ined. I. ‘
application for Iecalling PW} on ithe i&lie’gafion..v’iif1f2et 2 L.
documents are {raced later on.
4. The learned Gin liesiffound that,
PW} was cmss~exa1nined on and fuxther the
matter hasivbeera Considering the same. he has
rejected the eppiieafién.”Even”‘*;1eé.umi11g that some documents axe
the it can be produced by way of defence
‘evidence. averment is made as negaxtl to, what is the
‘i10W it is relevant to the ease and whether it is
to _be eenfionted to the Pm. Without there being any
i’ ” ‘T there is no mason for recalling the witness PW1.
‘F;}ie Sessions Judge has.right1y’ rejected the same. No
to interfere.
?etition dismissed.
Sd/-
Iudqe