ISMAIL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revision is directed against the order dated 21. 11. 94 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirkazhukunram, Chingleput, made in Cri. M. P. No. 2111 of 1994 under Section 32, I. P. C. for reopening the case and examining the witnesses on behalf of the petitioner herein.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, being a victim, filed a complaint in C. C. No. l 14 of 1991 and therefore filed the above Cri. M. P. No. 2717 of 1997 seeking permission to reopen the case and to examine the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. He challenges the finding of the learned Magistrate that the Assistant Public Prosecutor alone is entitled to represent the case as erroneous and will land in miscarriage of justice.

(3.) THEREFORE, I do not agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, except to permit the petitioner to make an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate seeking permission to submit a written argument on behalf of the petitioner, if he is so advised, and the same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed by the Judicial magistrate by exercising power under Section 301 (2), Cr. P. C.