Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUNIL KUMAR, VALLIKKADA versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SUNIL KUMAR, VALLIKKADA v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT - Crl MC No. 7 of 2004(A) [2007] RD-KL 14225 (26 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 7 of 2004(A)

1. SUNIL KUMAR, VALLIKKADA,
... Petitioner

2. MANOJ KUMAR, KALAYIL HOUSE,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT
... Respondent

2. DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, C.B.C.I.D.,

For Petitioner :SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY

Dated :26/07/2007

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY, J.

Criminal M.C.No.7 OF 2004 (A)

Dated this the 26th day of July, 2007

O R D E R

On 25.5.1994, two Malayalam movie video cassettes were seized from the petitioners and the matter was transferred to C.B. C.I.D. Final report was filed only on 5.1.1999 after the delay of 20 months. Magistrate condoned the delay without hearing the petitioners and according to the petitioners there are no sufficient reasons for condoning the delay. From the order of the Magistrate revision application was filed before the Sessions Court. It was found that Magistrate took cognizance of the matter without giving notice regarding the condonation of delay to the petitioners and thereafter the following order was passed:

"The revision petitioners shall be given sufficient opportunity for submitting all their objections against the delayed charge sheet. At the same time they will not be permitted to compute the period already elapsed after 5.1.1999. The investigating agency also shall be given an opportunity to submit any other explanation for the delay involved in filing 2 the charge sheet only on 5.1.1999. The trial court is hereby directed to consider the objections of both sides and hear both sides and pass a speaking order either refusing to take cognizance or to take cognizance of the offence as if the order is being passed by it on 5.1.1999. To meet the above ends the order taking cognizance of the offence dated 5.1.1999 as well as all subsequent orders passed in C.C.No.8/1999 including the impugned order are hereby set aside." Therefore order taking cognizance was set aside. Now it is for the petitioners to take all the contentions before the Magistrate Court and only for valid circumstances, Magistrate can condone the delay and take cognizance. Since the matter is only remanded for consideration by the Magistrate, I see no ground to interfere in the impugned order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly this criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed without expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the case.

J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE

prp 3 J.B.KOSHY Criminal.Appeal. OF 1998 4

JUDGMENT

14th March, 2007


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.