Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AHAMMEDKUTTY @ BABUJI versus THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


AHAMMEDKUTTY @ BABUJI v. THE STATE OF KERALA - Crl MC No. 1552 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 13224 (17 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1552 of 2007()

1. AHAMMEDKUTTY @ BABUJI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. GOPALAN,S/O.CHATHAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :17/07/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C. NO. 1552 OF 2007

Dated this the 17th day of July, 2007

ORDER

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act. The petitioner was the 1st accused. The co- accused - accused Nos.2 and 3, stood trial. They have been found not guilty and acquitted. As the petitioner was not available at the relevant time, he did not stand trial. The case against him has been split up. The petitioner now faces the prospect of a fresh trial against him.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co-accused having already been acquitted, the petitioner may be given the advantage of the said judgment of acquittal. The case against the petitioner may be brought to premature termination by invoking the powers under Sec.482 of the Crl.M.C. NO. 1552 OF 2007 -: 2 :- Cr.P.C.

3. It is by now trite - after the decision of a Full Bench in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552) that the mere fact that the co-accused have been found not guilty and acquitted in a trial held against them in the absence of an accused like the petitioner cannot confer any benefit or advantage on such absconding co-accused. It is not disputed that the nature of the allegation against the petitioner/1st accused is qualitatively different from the allegations that are raised against the co-accused. I do not, in these circumstances, find any justification in the prayer for invocation of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

4. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. NO. 1552 OF 2007 -: 3 :-


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.