SAM VINCENT Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner challenges the order dated 02/06/2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha dismissing his application filed as CMP No. 4304 of 2007 in CC No. 112 of 2007 seeking to keep in abeyance the proceedings in CC No. 112 of 2007 until the appeals preferred against the original judgment and pending before this Court are finally disposed of.

(2.) The revision petitioner was the first informant examined as PW 1 in a sessions case disposed of by the Third Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha as SC No. 517 of 2006. The said case arose out of crime No. 183 of 2006 of Munnar Police Station for offences punishable under S.302, 392 and 114 r/w S.120 (B) and 109 r/w S.34 IPC. The Third Additional Sessions Judge disposed of the aforesaid sessions case on 30/08/2007 convicting all the 3 accused persons therein. During the course of trial, the petitioner herein who was charge witness No.1 and who was examined as PW 1, resiled from Ext. P1 FI Statement was given by him under S.154 CrPC. Hence, while disposing of the above sessions case, the Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner had given false evidence before the Court and recorded a preliminary finding to that effect in the judgment in SC No. 517 of 2006. Thereafter, the Additional Sessions Judge conducted a preliminary enquiry under S.340 CrPC and decided to lodge a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha against the revision petitioner for prosecuting him for an offence punishable under S.193 IPC, which appeared to have been committed by the revision petitioner when examined as PW 1 in the aforesaid sessions case. The revision petitioner has admittedly not preferred an appeal against the said proceedings by invoking S.341 CrPC. After the complaint was forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha, the case was registered as CC No. 112 of 2007. When the trial of the said case was about to be started, the revision petitioner filed CMP No. 4304 of 2007 praying that CC No. 112 of 2007 may be kept in abeyance till the appeals preferred before this Court against the judgment in SC No. 517 of 2006 were disposed of by this Court. It was the said petition which was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate though not for the reason that there is no provision for adjourning the proceedings, but for the reason that in spite of adequate opportunities having been given to the petitioner to produce evidence in support of his contention that appeals are pending before this Court, he did not produce any material.

(3.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.