IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3702 of 2006()
1. P.B.BOSE, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. SUNDARESAN PILLAI,
3. AROMAL PILLAI, S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,
4. ABDUL SALAM, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU,
5. BINU, S/O. VIDHYADHARAN,
6. SHIBU, S/O. SIVAPRASAD,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.SABU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :11/12/2006
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.NO.3702 OF 2006
------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2006.
ORDER
The petitioner is the 4th accused in three different criminal
cases. Accused 2, 3 & 4 in all the three cases are the same persons.
The 1st accused in all the three cases are different individuals. The
crux of the allegations is that forged documents were used by the 1st
accused concerned. It is the case of the prosecution that accused 2 to
4 were involved in identical forgeries in respect of three different
persons, ie. the 1st accused in the respective crimes. The petitioner
made an application to try all the three cases together. Annexure-4 is
the application for such joint trial. The application admittedly was
opposed by the 1st accused in the concerned cases. The learned
Magistrate by Annexure-A5 order came to the conclusion that the
interests of justice did not demand that the three cases must be tried
together. The proceedings are at different stages. The 1st accused in
the three cases are not common. The allegations relate to forging of
different documents altogether. All these reasons appear to have
weighed with the learned Magistrate to pass Annexure-A1 order
turning down the prayer of the petitioner for joint trial.
2. I find absolutely nothing wrong in the impugned order,
which would justify this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Section
Crl.M.C.NO.3702 OF 2006 2
482 Cr.P.C. I take particular note of the fact that the precise offence
of forgery alleged in the three cases are specific, distinct and
different, though accused 2, 3 & 4 appear to have a role in the forgery
of all the three documents. In these circumstances, I am certainly
persuaded to agree that the impugned order-Annexure-A5 warrants or
deserves interference for any reason.
3. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
R.BASANT
JUDGE
rtr/