Kerala High Court
C.G. Yesudas vs Siby Thomas on 2 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 13TH MAGHA, 1943
OP(CRL.) NO. 43 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2021 IN C.M.P.NO.1967/2021 IN
S.T.NO.31/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, KALAMASSERY
PETITIONER:
C.G. YESUDAS,
AGED 64 YEARS, CHEMBAKOTTUKUDIYIL HOUSE,
KOTHAMANGALAM, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686 692
BY ADVS. SRI.JULIAN XAVIER J
SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN
SRI.ROY JOSEPH
SMT.ANJANA. RAM
RESPONDENT:
SIBY THOMAS,
THAYYIL HOUSE, A-22,
SANTHINAGAR ANEX, RAJAGIRI.P.O., KALAMASSERY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683104
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(Crl.) No.43 of 2022 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 02nd day of February, 2022
In the nature of the relief sought in the petition, notice to
the respondent is dispensed with.
2. An order dismissing an application filed by the
petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') is assailed in the Original Petition. The
application was dismissed by Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Kalamassery (for short 'the court below') since reasons
were not stated in the application to convince the court that the
evidence proposed to be adduced additionally is relevant for the
purpose of a just and proper adjudication of the case on hand.
3. Under Section 311 Cr.P.C a court is empowered to
recall any witness sought to be recalled for reexamination and
record the evidence on being convinced of it's relevancy in the
adjudication of the case. It is also provided under Section 311
Cr.P.C that a party approaching a court seeking to adduce
additional evidence must convince the court about the relevancy
and importance of the evidence proposed to be adduced in
addition. In the case on hand it appears from the application
filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C that in what manner the evidence
proposed to be adduced is relevant for the adjudication was not
stated and therefore the court below cannot be said to be erred
or unjustified in dismissing the application.
4. The application being dismissed for the sole reason
stated above, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned
order and to direct the petitioner to file a fresh application
stating how the evidence proposed to be adduced is relevant in
the case on hand and in the event of filing one afresh, the court
below shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders
within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of it.
O.P(Crl.) is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
NAB
APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 43/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
3.5.2013 FILED BY THE
COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE
JFCM-II, ALUVA
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 14.11.2018
FILED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STANDARD REQUISITION
FORM DATED 8.4.2019
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
10.10.2019 AS I.A.NO.3180/2019 IN
O.S.NO.244/2015
EXHIBIT P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CASE STATUS
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.2.2021 IN
CMP NO. 127/2021 IN ST. NO. 31/2016
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
9.12.2021 IN CRL. M.P. NO. 19167/2021 IN
S.T. NO. 39/2016
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
PASSBOOK OF M/S.AUTUMN TREES FOR THE
PERIOD FROM 31.1.2011 TO 1.2.2011
EXHIBIT P8 CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.301/2011
OF SRO DEVIKULAM
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.12.2021 IN
CMP NO.1967/2021 IN ST NO. 31/2016 OF
JFCM KALAMASSERY
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P A TO JUDGE
