Kerala High Court
Saneep vs State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA,
1946
CRL.MC NO. 2826 OF 2024
CRIME NO.510/2016 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 14.02.2024 IN SC
NO.259 OF 2017 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/II
ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR
............................
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED :
SANEEP, AGED 29 YEARS
PERINCHERY HOUSE, PANAYAMBADAM,
EDAKKUNNY VILLAGE,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680 306.
BY ADVS.
SARATH BABU KOTTAKKAL
ARCHANA VIJAYAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2826 OF 2024
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
......................................................
Crl.M.C. No.2826 of 2024
...................................................
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner challenges the order dated 14.02.2024 in CMP No.64/2024
in S.C.No.259/2017 on the files of the IInd Additional Assistant
Sessions Court, Thrissur. The prosecution filed a petition under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C., after the hearing was completed, for the
purpose of examining CW2, CW5 and CW7. The learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, by the impugned order, allowed the application.
2. I have heard Sri.Sarath Babu Kottakkal, the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public
Prosecutor.
3. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that no reasons
have been stated for allowing the petition. In fact, the court has
proceeded on the assumption that the witnesses are being recalled,
as is evident from the impugned order, while it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that those witnesses have not even
been examined. The consideration for recalling a witness and
CRL.MC NO. 2826 OF 2024
examining a witness who had not been earlier examined, are both
different. Reasons being the soul of every order, however brief they
may be it must be evident from the order itself. Therefore, the
impugned order dated 14.02.2024 is perverse and is required to be
interfered with.
4. Accordingly, I set aside the order dated 14.02.2024 in CMP
No.64/2024 in S.C.No.259/2017 on the files of the IInd Additional
Sub Court, Thrissur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is
directed to pass fresh orders on the said application, after granting
an opportunity of hearing to both sides.
5. Registry shall communicate the contents of this order, immediately
to the court concerned, for compliance.
The Crl.M.C.is allowed as above.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AMV/27/03/2024
CRL.MC NO. 2826 OF 2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
DATED 02.03.2023
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
DATED 22.03.2023
ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
DATED 11.08.2023
ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ARGUMENTS NOTE
DATED 17.10.2023
ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
DATED 17.10.2023
ANNEXURE A6 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CMP 701/2023
19.10.2023
ANNEXURE A7 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER DATED
03.11.2023
ANNEXURE A8 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
DATED 09.01.2024
ANNEXURE A9 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CMP 64/2024
19.01.2024
ANNEXURE A10 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
DATED 14.02.2024
ANNEXURE A11 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
DATED 11.03.2024
ANNEXURE A12 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO 510/2016 OF THE OLLUR POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DATED 10.07.2016
ANNEXURE A13 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP
64/2024 IN SC 259/2017 DATED 14.02.2024
TRUE COPY
