ORDER :

1. The challenge in this Crl.M.C is to the order dated 16.2.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.958/2023 in C.C.No.438/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy.

2. The petitioner is accused No.2. He faces a charge under Section 392 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that on 12.1.2022 at 5 a.m at Vennur Padam, the petitioner and the other accused committed robbery and thereby snatched away a gold chain weighing 16 grams belonging to PW1. The petitioner was riding the two-wheeler on which accused No.1 was riding pillion.

4. PW1 is the defacto complainant. She is the only occurrence witness. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 15 and proved Exts.P1 to P27.

5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, thereafter, filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to recall PW1, stating the reason that she omitted to identify accused No.2. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor asserted that there was no evidence to identify accused No.2 and identification of the accused is very much essential for the just decision of the case.

6. The petitioner challenged the application contending, that while examining PW1, the learned Public Prosecutor had specifically ask