Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHIBU, S/O.MUHAMMADALI versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SHIBU, S/O.MUHAMMADALI v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 385 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 3492 (15 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 385 of 2007()

1. SHIBU, S/O.MUHAMMADALI,
... Petitioner

2. SURESH, S/O.SUNDARESAN,

3. SUMINA, W/O.ABDUL VAHAB,

4. ABDUL VAHAB, S/O.YUNUS KUNJU,

Vs

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

2. ADDITIONAL SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. RAJIMOL.V., W/O.SAJIKUMAR,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :15/02/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.NO. 385 OF 2007

Dated this the 15th day of February, 2007

ORDER

The precise grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this Crl.M.C. praying for a quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners is that the investigation into the offence punishable under the Trade Marks Act has been conducted by an Investigating Officer not legally qualified and without complying with the proviso to Sec.115(4) of the Trade Marks Act. He further raises a contention that the provisions in the Indian Penal Code for which he has been indicted on the basis of the final report filed by the police are in no way applicable to the facts in the instant case. The petitioners, in these circumstances, pray that the proceedings against them may be quashed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the final report has already been filed and the petitioners have been directed to appear before the learned Magistrate. The petitioners are willing and prepared to raise these contentions before the learned Magistrate. But the learned counsel for CRL.M.C.NO. 385 OF 2007 -: 2 :- the petitioners submits that the petitioners apprehend that they will be put to unnecessary vexation and harassment if they were to physically appear before the learned Magistrate.

3. I am of opinion that the petitioners have serious questions to be urged before the learned Magistrate. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the learned Magistrate must exempt the petitioners from personal appearance and permit the learned counsel for the petitioners to represent them and advance arguments for discharge under Sec.239/240 of the Cr.P.C. After hearing such arguments, only if the learned Magistrate feels that charge deserves to be framed, need the personal presence of the petitioners be insisted.

4. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

HO Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge


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.