P. Manjunatha v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937Q Crl.MC.No. 7410 of 2015 () --------------------------- CMP NO. 3062/2015 IN SC NO. 173/2009 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-I, KASARGOD ----------------- PETITIONER/INFORMANT :

---------------------------------------- P. MANJUNATHA, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.LATE DAMODARA KOROTH VAYAL HOUSE KALINGOTH DESOM, PANAYAI AMSOM, VIA. KANHANGAD KASARGOD DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRA KRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED/STATE :

---------------------------------------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PULIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM - 682 031 (CRIME NO.471/2007 OF BAKEL POLICE STATION KASARAGOD DISTRICT)

2. P.RAJESH, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.RAMAN, PULIKKAL HOUSE, NELLIYADUKKAM KALINGOTH, PANAYAL VILLAGE KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 121.

3. P.RAMAN, AGED 66 YEARS S/O.APPA, PULIKKAL HOUSE, NELLIYADUKKAM KALINGOTH, PANAYAL VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT - 671 121.

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/-

Crl.MC.No. 7410 of 2015 () -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

----------------------------------------------- ANNEXURE I:

TRUE COPY OF THE PETTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER THE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-I, KASARGOD, IN SC NO.173/2009. ANNEXURE II:

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MP NO.3062/2015 IN SC NO.173/2009 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I, KASARAGOD.

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES : NIL ------------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn

[CR] B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

................................................................ CRL.M.C. No. 7410 of 2015 ............................................................... Dated this the 30th day of November, 2015

O R D E R

PW1, who is the son of the deceased in S.C.No.173/2009 of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasaragod, filed Crl.M.P.No.3062/2015 before the court below under Section 91 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking the production of some documents and the recalling of some witnesses for examination. Through Annexure-II order, the court below has dismissed Annexure-I Crl.M.P. 2.

It is true that the court below has permitted the petitioner to engage an Advocate of his choice for assisting the prosecution under the proviso to Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. As to the manner in which such a pleader, who is engaged

CRL.M.C.No. 7410 of 2015 -: 2 :- on the application of the defacto complainant should act, are contained in Section 301(2) Cr.P.C. If any such private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public Prosecutor, and may, with the permission of the Court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case. The provision is very clear that apart from submitting a written argument, after the evidence is closed in the case, that too with the permission of the Court, the pleader so instructed, can only act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor. That means, such a pleader or a party, cannot file any application, other than the written arguments in the matter. Matters being so, the Crl.M.P filed before the court below is not maintainable and therefore, the dismissal of the said Crl.M.P. by the court below cannot be found fault with. 3.

It is high time to think that some more provisions

CRL.M.C.No. 7410 of 2015 -: 3 :- are to be added to the Code of Criminal Procedure in such matters, especially when a private party aggrieved can file an appeal against acquittal. In such an appeal, of course, the shortcomings of the prosecution, inefficiency of the prosecution, as well as the request of this kind forwarded by the aggrieved person, are valid grounds. In such case, some more powers have to be given to the pleaders being appointed by the parties in the matter under the proviso to Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. As things stand now, when any other interference or intervention is barred by the provisions contained under Section 301(2) Cr.P.C., the present, Crl.M.C. is devoid of merits, and is only to be dismissed, and I do so.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE ul/- [True copy] P.S. to Judge