The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash a Magistrate's order dismissing a petition under Section 205 CrPC to dispense with the accused's presence at trial, holding no reason to interfere.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931
Crl.MC.No. 108 of 2010()
-----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/10/2009 IN CMP.6847/2009 IN CC.975/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA
PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER:3RD ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------------------------------------GIREESH, S/O. GOPALAN, KAIMADICHIRA HOUSE, WARD NO.VI, PALLIPURAM PANCHAYATH.
BY ADV. MR.C.K.SAJEEV
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:STATE:
-------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
Crl.M.C.No.108 of 2010
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010
ORDER
Petitioner the accused in C.C.975/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Cherthala filed Annexure-A petition under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure for dispensing with his presence at the time of trial. By Annexure-B order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash that order.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard.
On hearing the learned counsel, though for different reasons, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-B order dismissing the petition. Annexure-A petition does not show that petitioner has not disputed his identity or that evidence could be recorded in his absence, treating presence of his counsel as his presence. There is no undertaking that he will not challenge the evidence so recorded. In such circumstances, the petition can only be dismissed. The dismissal of the petition will not be a bar for filing a proper application in accordance with law.
Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge
cms
1 issue framed by the court
Should the court quash the Magistrate's order dismissing the petition for dispensing with the accused's presence at trial?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Gireesh, S/O. Gopalans
State of Kerala
M.Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
