Xxxxxx vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 10405 Ker

OP(CRL.) NO. 506 OF 2022             1




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
     FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944
                           OP(CRL.) NO. 506 OF 2022
   IN CRL.M.P NO.98/2022 IN SC 648/2021 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL
                               COURT, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/S:

             XXXXXXXXXX
             XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

             BY ADVS.
             V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
             ANAND V.S


RESPONDENT:

             STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031




             SMT T V NEEMA-SR PP


      THIS    OP    (CRIMINAL)    HAVING     COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
07.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(CRL.) NO. 506 OF 2022              2




                                  JUDGMENT

This Original Petition has been filed challenging the order

passed in C.M.P.No.98/2022 in S.C.No.648/2021 on the file of the

Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Kozhikode (for short 'the court

below').

2. The petitioner is the accused. He faced trial for the

offences punishable under Sections 4(2), 3(b), 6, 5(m), 8,7, 10 and

91 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

3. CW1 and CW2 were examined as PW1 and PW2.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed C.M.P.No.98/2022 to recall them

under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. It was dismissed by the court below

as per the impugned order. The said order is under challenge in

this Original Petition.

4. I have heard Sri.V.T.Madhavanunni, the learned counsel

for the petitioner and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public

Prosecutor.

5. The only reason shown by the petitioner to recall PWs 1

and 2 is that the earlier counsel appearing for the petitioner at the

court below has omitted to put certain relevant questions when they

were examined. It is true that Section 311 of Cr.P.C gives wide

power to the Magistrate/Court to recall any witness who was

already examined at any time. However, it must be for the just

decision of the case. The failure on the part of the counsel to put

questions is not a ground to recall the witnesses. No sufficient

reason has been shown by the petitioner to recall the witnesses.

That apart, the court below found that those witnesses were cross

examined in detail by the counsel for the petitioner. In these

circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned

order.

Hence, the Original Petition (Crl.) is dismissed.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE FIR NO.1171/2020 OF PANTHEERAMKAVU POLICE STATION EXT.P2: COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN C.M.P NO.98/2022 IN S.C.NO.648/21 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT EXT.P5: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW1 EXT.P6: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW2 EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P.NO.98/2022 IN S.C.NO.648/2021

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL