Allowed

M.Vijesh & Ors. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Apr 2008Crl.MC/1350/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed petitions by accused persons employed abroad seeking return of passports and personal exemption under Section 317 Cr.P.C. The petitioners surrendered passports while enlarged on bail but were required to file further petitions for their return. The court allowed these petitions, ordering the Sessions Court to permit trial in absentia.

What did the court decide?

Permitted trial in absentia through counsel; passports returned; presence not insisted unless inevitable.

M.Vijesh & Ors. Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1350 of 2008

¶6

------------------------SC.372/2004 of PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY

¶7

PETITIONER: ACCUSED 2,3 & 7;

¶8

¶9

M.VIJESH, S/O.PEETHAMBARAN, AGED 26 YRS, SARAYOO, P.O.MUNDAYAD, KANNUR.

¶10

P.V.ANOOP, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 31 YRS

¶11

'SIVASHAKTHI',P.O.KAPPAD, KANNUR.

¶12

T.P.PRADEEPAN, S/O.K.KELU NAMBIAR, AGED 35 YEARS, CHANDROTH HOUSE, P.O.MUNDAYAD, ELAYAVOOR, KANNUR.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

¶14

RESPONDENTS: STATE

¶15

¶16

STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.1350 of 2008

¶22

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶23

Dated this the 1ST DAY OF APRIL , 2008

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners, who are accused Nos.2,3 and 7 in S.C.No.372/2004 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Thalassery for offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,452,324,307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, had surrendered their passports before the Sessions Court while they were enlarged on bail. Subsequently, the petitioners filed Annexures A1 to A3 series of petitions for return of their passports and also for personal exemption before the court below under Section 317 Cr.P.C. undertaking that they will not dispute their identity and seeking permission of their counsel to represent them during trial. All those the petitions were dismissed by the Sessions Court as per the original of Annexure-A4 order dated 26-3-2007. Hence, this Crl.M.C.

¶26

CRL.M.C.NO.1350/2008

¶27

-2-

¶28

Being an old case, there is no reason why the petitioners, who are admittedly employed abroad, should be directed to be present in court during the trial at the risk of their employment particularly when the petitioners are not disputing their identity. Under these circumstances, the petitions filed by the petitioners before the trial court shall stand allowed and their passports shall be returned to them to enable them to return to their place of employment. They shall be permitted to stand trial in absentia through their counsel and their presence shall not be insisted by the Sessions Court during the trial of the case, unless it is inevitable to do so at any stage of trial. The Crl.M.C.is disposed of accordingly.

¶29

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶30

ks.

M.Vijesh & Ors. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Vijesh & Ors. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.K.Geetha Vs State of Kerala

K.Ibrahim Vs State

C.M.Eyyas Vs S.I.of Police & Another

T.R.Padmdas Vs S.I.of Police, Palarivattom

K.Razak Vs State of Kerala

K.Sreedharan Nair Vs P.G.K.Pillai