Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUNDARAN I.C., AGED 41 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SUNDARAN I.C., AGED 41 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE - WP(C) No. 20678 of 2007(J) [2007] RD-KL 16244 (21 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 20678 of 2007(J)

1. SUNDARAN I.C., AGED 41 YEARS,
... Petitioner

2. SELVARAJ K.K., AGED 41 YEARS,

3. VIJAYAN P.A., AGED 39 YEARS,

Vs

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

2. THE SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HOME,

3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

4. THE MANAGER,

5. MR.K.O.DAVIS, TEACHER,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :21/08/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

W.P(C).No.20678 of 2007

Dated this the 21st day of August, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition complaining about the inaccuracy in the time of occurrence recorded in the F.I.R in Crime No.156 of 2007 of Kothamangalam Police Station relating to the boat tragedy, which is known by the name `Thattekkadu Boat Tragedy'. The alleged incident, according to the petitioners, had taken place not at 5.20 p.m as incorrectly entered in the F.I.R. It had actually taken place much later, they allege. According to the petitioners, this shift in the timing has been made in the F.I.R only to oblige the persons who are culpably responsible.

2. Notice was given to the learned Government Pleader . The Investigating Officer has now filed a statement. In that statement it is reported that the F.I.Statement was recorded as given by the informant. But in the course of investigation it has now been realised that the time of occurrence was not by 5.20 p.m as recorded in the F.I.R, but actually it was 6.20 p.m. Report to that effect has already been made before the learned Magistrate concerned. A copy of that report is produced before this Court as Ext.R1(a). W.P(C).No.20678 of 2007 2

3. In the light of the stand taken by the respondent and Ext.R1(a) report filed before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, the grievance made by the petitioners does not survive. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as agreed.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-


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.