Remanded

Binu Cherian v. Gopalakrishnan

Kerala HC20 Aug 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/740/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside the trial court's acquittal of an accused charged with theft. The court found that evidence established dishonest taking of movable property, which attracts the offence of theft regardless of the accused's role as a supervisor, and directed a fresh trial.

What did the court decide?

The finding of acquittal set aside. The matter remanded to the court below for a fresh hearing and disposal.

Binu Cherian Vs Gopalakrishnan — Kerala HC (2007) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2007 / 29TH SRAVANA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 740 of 1999()

¶6

----------------------------CC.398/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY ....................

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

BINU CHERIAN, S/O.CHERIAN, THAKKIRIKKAL VEETTIL, CHELATTUKARA, KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, CHAYATTU HOUSE, PADINJARE VENGOLA.

¶14

*ADDL.R2

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, (THE S.I.OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNAD), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶16

(*)ADDL.RESPONDENT NO.2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22/10/1999 IN CRL.M.P.NO.4013/1999.

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI AMJAD ALI

¶18

SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

K.R.UDAYABHANU, J.

¶21

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Crl.R.P.No.740 of 1999(B)

¶22

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶23

Dated this the 20^th day of August, 2007

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This revision petition is filed by the de facto complainant, who is the manager of the Cochin Granites, from the premises of which the accused allegedly committed theft of timber logs worth Rs.15,000/-, 200 rubber sheets, three bags of cement and scrap rubber.

¶26

The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the testimony of PWs.1 to 8, Exts.P1 to P4. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that it appeared that the accused was working as a Supervisor of the company and that in the absence of production of documents by the company, it cannot be held that the accused had committed any misappropriation and that in case the accused was working as a Supervisor, the offence alleged will only be misappropriation and not theft.

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.740/1999-B

¶28

-:2:-

¶29

I find that PW.1, the Manager/de facto complainant has only testified that the accused was working as a Supervisor under the person to whom the crusher lying in the compound was rented out and that the accused used to be entrusted with the key of the store room wherein the rubber sheets etc. were kept and, he was also supervising the rubber estate of the company. It is the evidence of PWs.2 to 4, who are employed in the rubber estate that as per the direction of the accused, rubber sheets etc. were sold and the money handed over and, the timber logs were also loaded in the lorry and removed. The timber logs were recovered as per Ext.P2 mahazar allegedly as produced by the accused, as deposed to PW.8, the Investigating Officer. It is pointed out that the timber logs were not produced in the court.

¶30

It is the case of the defence that a case has been charge sheeted against the accused only to avoid paying him compensation as he has insisted that compensation has to be paid if he has to be terminated. I find that no details in this regard has been brought out in the cross-examination of PW.1.

¶31

Crl.R.P.No.740/1999-B

¶32

-:3:-

¶33

Now, the counsel has contended that Industrial Dispute is pending. It appears to me that even if it is conceded that the accused was working as a Supervisor, if it is established that dishonest taking of movable property has been committed the offence of theft will be attracted.

¶34

In the circumstances, the finding of acquittal is set aside. The court below is directed to dispose of the matter afresh by a reasoned order and permitting the prosecution and the defence to recall the witnesses, if so required, untrammelled by any observations contained in this order. The matter will stand posted before the court below on 28/09/2007.

¶35

K.R.UDAYABHANU, Judge

¶36

¶37

Crl.R.P.No.740/1999-B

¶38

-:4:-

¶39

K.R.UDAYABHANU, J.

¶40

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Crl.R.P.No.740 of 1999(B)

¶41

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

20^th August, 2007

¶44

Crl.R.P.No.740/1999-B

¶45

-:5:-

Binu Cherian v. Gopalakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binu Cherian v. Gopalakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Jayendran Vs C.C.Krishnan

U. Sudheer Vs Prasanthkumar

P.V. Asokan Vs Pradeep Kumar

A.M.Iyas Vs Murugan

B.Manmohan Vs K.Dilikumar

Abdul Manaf Vs State of Kerala