Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

O. HAREESH, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR (LATE) versus S.I. OF POLICE, KASABA POLICE STATION

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


O. HAREESH, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR (LATE) v. S.I. OF POLICE, KASABA POLICE STATION - Crl Rev Pet No. 1872 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 10770 (20 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 1872 of 2007()

1. O. HAREESH, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR (LATE)
... Petitioner

2. ROOPESH, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN,

3. JYOTHISH, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR,

Vs

1. S.I. OF POLICE, KASABA POLICE STATION,
... Respondent

2. STATE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

Dated :20/06/2007

O R D E R

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

Crl.R.P.No. 1872/2007 Dated this 20th day of June, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 2 to 4 in C.C.No.75/2002 on the file of the C.J.M, Kozhikode. They along with the first accused were initially charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 408, 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The final report was filed in the year 2002. A charge was framed by the C.J.M in terms of the final report. After five years thereafter, when the first witness for the prosecution was being examined, the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case filed Annexure-II report requesting to SPLIT the charge against the accused persons into two. Even though Annexure-II report was objected by the first accused, the Court below altered the charge by framing Annexure-IV charge, a reading of which does not make any sense. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are ROPED in by the said charge with the aid of Section 34. Apart from the fact that the Court charge is IN vernacular, It suffers from Crl.R.P.1872/2007 2 want of specificity and proper count for each charge. Framing of such omnibus charge by the trial Courts has been deprecated in various judicial pronouncements. Annexure-IV charge consists of one single sentence running into two pages and finally concludes by saying that all the four accused persons have committed offences punishable under Sections 408, 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Annexure-IV charge is an apology for a charge and is not in proper form. It is accordingly set aside and the Court below shall proceed to frame charge in the case or discharge all or any of the accused, as the case may be after hearing the revision petitioners as well as the first accused and also the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case. The Crl.R.P is disposed of as above. V.RAMKUMAR,

JUDGE

mrcs


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.