Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARI G.NAIR,GOKULAM,KAKKAND,PANDALAM versus HE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


HARI G.NAIR,GOKULAM,KAKKAND,PANDALAM v. HE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE - RP No. 494 of 2007(A) [2007] RD-KL 9326 (4 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 494 of 2007(A)

1. HARI G.NAIR,GOKULAM,KAKKAND,PANDALAM.
... Petitioner

Vs

1. HE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent

2. RUBCO SREEKANTAPURAM LATEX (P) LTD,

For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :04/06/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

R.P.No.494 of 2007 in W.P(C) No.11131 of 2006(A)

Dated this the 4th day of June, 2007

ORDER

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. I find absolutely no error apparent on the face of the record, which would justify the invocation of the jurisdiction in review. The grievance of the petitioner is that proceedings have been initiated against him for non appearance before the learned Magistrate in a criminal case. According to him, he is not the real accused in that case and he is being proceeded against most unnecessarily and unjustifiably. This contention cannot obviously be accepted by this Court in the light of the common order passed earlier by this Court in Crl.M.C.Nos.2502 of 2004, 1225 of 2005, 1232 of 2005 and 1244 of 2005. There also, it appears that the petitioner has raised the very same contention that he is not the managing director and is consequently not liable to face the prosecution. He had raised the contention there that the court is unnecessarily and unjustifiably proceeding against him. Justice A.K.Basheer in the said case has, after adverting to circumstances in detail, took the view that the petitioner is liable to face the prosecution as Managing Director and must raise his contention that he is not the Managing Director before the learned Magistrate. That order has already been challenged and the challenge was turned down by the Supreme Court. R.P.No.494 of 2007 in W.P(C) No.11131 of 2006(A) 2

2. The decision in the common order shows clearly that the petitioner must face trial and raise his contention that he is not the Managing Director before the learned Magistrate. I find absolutely no justification in the repetition of that prayer again in this Review Petition that the petitioner is not the Managing Director and proceedings to secure the presence of the petitioner in such prosecution should not be initiated or continued against him.

3. The learned counsel submits that though in the complaint he is not arrayed as an accused, by name he is forced to face the trauma of this prosecution. Justice A.K.Basheer had held that the petitioner must face trial as Managing Director. That finding has become final. I do not hence find anything in this grievance also.

4. That there is no error on the face of the record is evident, but the passionate submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the perseverance with which such contentions have been advanced have prompted me to make such reference to facts in this order.

5. This Review Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed.

(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.