Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
CLIQCOP INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 319 OF 2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. costs imposed for recalling a witness. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding costs. (Para 2) |
| 3. modification of costs decision by the court. (Para 3) |
O R D E R
The petitioner is aggrieved by the exorbitant costs imposed for allowing an application to recall a witness/complainant. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakkanad, as per order dated 13.11.2025 in C.M.P. No.3936/2025 in C.C.No.507/2016, allowed the petition to recall the witness on payment of Rs.7,500/-
as costs.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. It appears that the costs imposed is exorbitant. The order dated 13.11.2025 in C.M.P. No.3936 of 2025 in C.C.No.507 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, stands modified. The petitioner shall remit Rs.500/-
towards costs.
The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
