DHARMARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 16.5.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam in SC 241/2001.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision may be stated as follows: The petitioner is the accused in S.C. 241/2001 (popularly known as Suryanelli case) on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam. He is charged with the offences punishable under S.120(B), 363, 366(A) 368, 332, 373, 376, 376(2)(g), 392 read with S.109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner submitted a list of 45 witnesses for the defence. The Court below by the impugned order allowed him to examine 12 witnesses out of the 45 witnesses and refused permission to examine the remaining 33 witnesses. Aggrieved by the refusal of the court below to permit him to examine all the persons mentioned in the witness schedule, the petitioner has come up with this revision.

(3.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the Director General of Prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the court below is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained either in law or on facts. According to the learned counsel, in order to enable the petitioner to prove that the prosecution has suppressed the truth before the court, it is necessary to examine all the witnesses mentioned in the witness schedule. He further contended that the reasons given by the court below for refusing permission to examine all the witnesses are no reasons at all. On the other hand, the learned Director General of Prosecution challenged the maintainability of the revision petition on the ground that the impugned order is an interlocutory order, and in view of sub-s. 2 of S.397 of the Cr.P.C. the order is not revisable. According to him, the witness schedule is intended only to delay the proceedings and the lower court was fully justified in short listing the witnesses.