PRABHAKARAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution, inter alia, for the offence punishable under Sec.326 of the IPC. There was a case and counter case. It is submitted that the parties were referred to the Lok Adalath for settlement of their disputes. In the counter case, composition was reported and the matter was settled. The proceedings in that case was closed. In this case, as the offence under Sec.326 of the IPC is not compoundable, parties had to go through the entire procedure and P.Ws.1 to 7 have by now been examined. P.W.1 is said to be the only injured witness. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the other occurrence witnesses. All three of them turned hostile to the prosecution evidently in the light of the settlement of disputes between the parties, it is submitted. P.W.4 was examined. That witness supported the case of the prosecution. In the course of cross-examination of P.W.4, it would appear that the counsel had put certain questions to which objections were raised by her as also by P.W.6 who was later examined. She (P.W.6) is the mother of P.W.4. P.W.4 - the occurrence witness, allegedly supported the case of the prosecution. In between, there was a transfer of the case and transfer back to the same court as the incumbent in office had changed. An objection was raised against the conduct of the incumbent in office as Magistrate when P.W.4 was examined in not preventing unfair questions to P.W.4.

(2.) Be that as it may, the present controversy arose when the Prosecutor filed an application for recall of P.Ws.1 to 4 and

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the powers under Sec.311 of the Cr.P.C. have been incorrectly, improperly and unfairly exercised by the learned Magistrate. No circumstance exists justifying the invocation of the powers under Sec.311 of the Cr.P.C., it is submitted. In these circumstances, the learned counsel prays that the impugned order may be set aside.