The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.1293/2003 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva. During trial, they filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to implead one of the witnesses as accused. The said application was filed on the basis of some statements given by the said witness during trial. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application by order dated 11.08.2011, on the ground that the said prayer cannot be allowed in view of the proviso to Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act, granting protection to witnesses examined in court. The petitioners challenged the said order in revision before the Court of Session, Ernakulam. The learned Sessions Judge concurred with the findings of the trial court, and dismissed the Crl.R.P.No.63/2011. The said order is under challenge in this proceeding. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the impugned orders, I find that this is in fact a mischievous application. The witness cannot be impleaded as Crl.M.C.. No. 699/2013 2 accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. because the witness is well protected by the proviso to Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act. The request made by the petitioner was rightly disallowed by the trial court, and also by the revisional court. I find no reason, legal or factual, to grant the relief sought by the petitioners. I find that the application was rightly dismissed by the court below. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed in limine, without being admitted to files.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE sd