Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANJUNATHA, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.RAMA versus THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MANJUNATHA, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.RAMA v. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER - Crl MC No. 902 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 6431 (28 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 902 of 2007()

1. MANJUNATHA, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.RAMA,
... Petitioner

2. GANESH, AGED 35 YEARS,

3. PURUSHOTHAMA, AGED 40 YEARS,

Vs

1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.T.MADHU

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :28/03/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.NO. 902 OF 2007

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2007

ORDER

The petitioners are the witnesses cited by the prosecution in a criminal case. They were bound over by the learned Magistrate on execution of a bond to appear before the learned Magistrate on a later date. They did not appear before the learned Magistrate as undertaken by them in the bond executed in favour of the court. The learned Magistrate thereupon initiated proceedings under Sec.446 of the Cr.P.C. The impugned order has thus been passed under Sec.446 of the Cr.P.C. directing payment of an amount of Rs.2,000/- each. Balance amount was remitted.

2. The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to challenge the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is patently wrong and results in miscarriage of justice. CRL.M.C.NO. 902 OF 2007 -: 2 :-

3. I am unable to agree. Notwithstanding the fact that the Section has been wrongly quoted by the learned Magistrate as "Sec.446A of the Cr.P.C." and the fact that the learned Magistrate has used an inelegant and inappropriate expression "fined Rs.2000/-", the fact remains that the impugned order is one imposing a penalty under Sec.446 of the Cr.P.C. Such an order is amenable to challenge under Sec.449 of the Cr.P.C. I find no reason to invoke the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to interfere with such an order.

4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. Needless to say that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to take up all appropriate and relevant contentions in such appeal to be filed under Sec.449 of the Cr.P.C. I have only chosen to hold that the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. do not deserve to be invoked. Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

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.