Dismissed

A.K.N.Panicker v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 May 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/811/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the accused's challenge to the Magistrate's refusal to close evidence due to delay. The court held that the transfer of case files was the cause of delay and that Common Cause's protections did not apply as the relevant decision had been overruled for Section 138 cases.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed; associated criminal miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.

A.K.N.Panicker Vs the State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931

¶5

CRL.REV.PET.NO. 811 OF 2000()

¶6

----------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/08/2000 IN CRMP 2457/2000 IN CC.782/1998 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTTAYAM

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER(S) - ACCUSED:

¶8

----------------------------------------------

¶9

A.K.N. PANICKER, PROPRIETOR, AGRAHA AGENCIES, M.L. ROAD, KOTTYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) - STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶12

------------------------------------------------------

¶13

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2. JACOB MATHEW @ JACOB MATHEN, KINATTUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, PUTHANANGADY, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶18

CRL. R.P. NO.811 of 2000

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2009

¶20

Heard both sides.

¶21

Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.782 of 1998 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam. He filed Crl.M.P. No.2457 of 2000 to close the evidence in the light of the decision in

¶22

Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) 4 SCC 33 as modified in Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 775. Learned Magistrate as per the impugned order dismissed the petition. Hence the revision.

¶23

It is seen from the order under challenge that originally the case was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Kottayam and on 25.6.1997 the case was transferred to the court Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kottayam. The case was pending in that court till 1.12.1998 and subsequently the case was transferred to the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam. Learned Magistrate observed that as per the clarificatory order dated 28.11.1996 in Writ Petition (Civil)No.1128 of 1986 the directions in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the decision in Common Cause's case shall not apply to cases

¶24

CRL. R.P. NO.811 of 2000

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

relating to the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate observed that the delay in recording the evidence was due to the transfer of the case to the different courts.

¶27

In view of the above factual situation and since the decision in Common Cause's case has been over ruled by the Apex Court in Ramachanda Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002 (2)

¶28

KLT 189) the contention of the petitioner that learned Magistrate ought to have closed the evidence on account of the alleged delay cannot be sustained.

¶29

Revision petition therefore fails. It is dismissed.

¶30

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.4280 of 2001 and 4234 of 2001 shall stand dismissed.

¶31

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶32

vsv

¶33

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== CRL. R.P. NO.811 OF 2000 ===================

¶34

O R D E R