ANNAMMA Vs. CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuthiathode, the Judicial Magistrate of 2nd Class, Shertallai registered C. C. 901 of 1973 against three accused persons for offences under S.452, 354, 323, 379 and 34 IPC. Dissatisfied with the investigation and the charge sheet filed by the police, the petitioner herein, who is the first informant, filed a complaint C. C. 936 of 1973 before the Court against ten accused persons including the three accused in C. C. 901 of 1973 in respect of the same occurrence. While the cases were pending, a motion was made in 1975 that their trial should be in accordance with the principles laid down in S.210(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974. The court allowed the prayer and framed a common charge combining the two cases. After the examination of three witnesses mentioned in the police charge sheet, the complainant in C. C. 936 of 1973 wanted to examine some of the witnesses from the list of witnesses appended to her complaint. This was opposed by the accused stating that under S.210, the trial should be conducted as in a police charge case and that examination of the witnesses mentioned in the private complaint is not contemplated under that section. Such examination, according to them, would deprive them of the opportunity of a second cross examination which would have been available if the case had been proceeded with as a private complaint. The court accepted the contention and rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner wants the above order to be quashed.

(2.) The procedure followed and the stand taken by the court in not permitting the petitioner to examine her witnesses are erroneous. The Magistrate, in the first place, committed a mistake in applying S.210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Act 2 of 1974 in the cases before him. The court overlooked S.484(2) dealing with cases pending trial on the date of repeal of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. S.484(2)(a) reads:

(3.) Assuming that S.210 applies that section contemplates situations of a different type than the one in hand. S.210 reads: