Quashed

Abdul Rahman & Another v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Mar 2008Crl.MC/884/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous case, the High Court set aside the court charge framed by the trial court due to material errors involving incorrect dates and wrong sections cited, directing the trial court to rehear the parties and pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the court charge dated 28.11.06 in C.C.No.750 of 2003 and direct the trial court to rehear both parties and pass appropriate orders.

Abdul Rahman & Another Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 884 of 2008()

¶6

-----------------------CC.750/2003 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM ....................

¶7

PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.1 & 2

¶8

¶9

ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O.MARAKKAR PILLAI, CHAIRMAN, COCHIN SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, MUNDAMPALLI HOUSE, CHEMBAKASSERY ROAD, ALUVA.

¶10

ABDUL KHADER, S/O.ISMAIL, SECRETARY, COCHIN SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VENNALA, PALARIVATTOM P.O., COCHIN.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA

¶12

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT

¶13

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA (SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CB CID, CRIME NO.464/CR/84 CB CID, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.884 of 2008

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2008

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No.750 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, were charge sheeted by the Crime Branch Police for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for the contravention of Clauses 3 and 4 of the Kerala Cement Distribution ( L & R) Order, 1970 and Section 5 of the Import and Export( Control) Act 1947.

¶21

I heard both sides. A bare perusal of Annexure 3 court charge in C.C.No.750 of 2003 itself shows total non application of mind by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in framing the charge. When the specific case of the prosecution is that the offences were committed on 3.5.1984, and 26.7.84, the dates given in the court charge are 3/5/94 and 26/7/94 not only in one place but in two places. Similarly, mention in the court charge of Sections

¶22

¶23

Crl.M.C.No.884 of 2008

¶24

3 and 4 of the Kerala Cement Distribution (L&R) Order 1974 is obviously wrong. It can only be clauses 3 and 4 of the said Order. Likewise, reference to Section 3 of Import and Export (Central) Act 1947 is also an obvious mistake for Section 5 of the Import and Export(Control) Act 1947.

¶25

While framing charge, courts have to be very specific about the dates and the penal provisions, because the accused is called upon to answer specific heads of charge. When the court charge is demonstrably wrong, and if the accused is called upon to answer a wrong charge, and if ultimately the accused is acquitted of the offences for the palpable mistakes in the court charge, it will then be a travesty of justice, primarily due to the fault on the part of the court. Hence, while framing the court charge, courts have to be guarded against the commission of egregious mistakes. It may result in failure of justice.

¶26

In the result, the court charge dated 28.11.06 in C.C.No.750 of 2003 is set aside and the court shall hear both the prosecution as well as the accused and pass

¶27

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.884 of 2008

¶29

appropriate orders according to law. It shall be open to the revision petitioner to plead for a discharge on the ground that the State Trading Corporation, which is alleged to have been cheated, has no such grievance nor any material produced by the prosecution to show that the State Trading Corporation had suffered wrongful loss and also such other grounds which are available to the accused. The revision petitioners may also highlight the long delay in the investigation and prosecution of the case and the resultant injustice, if any, suffered by them.

¶30

This Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.

¶31

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶32

¶33

/True Copy/

¶34

P.A To Judge

Abdul Rahman & Another v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rahman & Another 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

C.P.Salih, S/O. C.P.Hameed Vs State of Kerala

P.Muraleedharan Vs Rameshan Puthalath and Others

Ravikumar Vs S.I.of Police

Shamsudin Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Sudheer Vs State of Keala

Poovannur Edakkatil Basheer Vs State of Kerala