High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
PUNNARA VEETTIL ACHUTHAN v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl MC No. 3901 of 2006  RD-KL 2445 (4 December 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCrl MC No. 3901 of 2006()
1. PUNNARA VEETTIL ACHUTHAN, S/O. BAPU,
2. M.K.VINOD, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN,
3. MOORAKKUDI SANTHA, W/O. ACHUTHAN,
4. VINEESH, S/O. ACHUTHAN, AGED 24 YEARS,
5. RAVINDRAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN,
6. CHANDRAN, S/O. KANARAN, AGED 35 YEARS,
7. SUDHEESH BABU, S/O. DHAMU,
8. SHAJI, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 28 YEARS,
9. RAJEEVAN, S/O. RAJAN, AGED 19 YEARS,
10. PURUSHU, S/O. KELAPPAN, AGED 28 YEARS,
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.CRL.M.C.NO. 3901 OF 2006
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2006
ORDERThe petitioners are accused 1 to 10 in a prosecution, inter alia, under Sec.135(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate against the petitioners for the offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.135(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act and Secs.143, 147 and 353 read with Sec.149 of the IPC.
2. The crux of the contentions of the petitioners is that cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec.135(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act is legally unsustainable and void inasmuch as the complaint has not been filed by the specified officer. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision of this Court in Crl.M.C.No.2910/05 dated 10/11/2006.
3. I find force in the submission that the cognizance of the offence under Sec.135(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act is not justified. Of course, it is for the learned Magistrate to consider and pass appropriate orders regarding framing of CRL.M.C.NO. 3901 OF 2006 -: 2 :- charges. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in so far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, there is no allegation of having committed any other offence also. Of course, the final report does not make that position very clear. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that the petitioners can be permitted to raise all their contentions at the stage of Sec.239/240 of the Cr.P.C. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 1st petitioner may be permitted to appear through counsel till the court takes a decision on the question of framing charge.
4. In the result:
(a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed in part.
(b) The learned Magistrate is directed to consider the question whether charges deserve to be framed against all the accused for the offences alleged including the offence punishable under Sec.135(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act.
(c) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I further direct that the personal presence of the 1st accused/1st petitioner before the learned Magistrate need be insisted if and only if the court finds that any charges are liable to be framed against him. Till then, he will be permitted to appear through counsel. Sd/-
Nan/ (R. BASANT, JUDGE)//true copy// P.S. To Judge
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.