Dismissed

Ambikuttan @ Ambili v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jan 2010Crl.MC/8/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash an order where the Sessions Judge adjourned prosecution for amendment of charge. The court held no speaking order was required at the adjournment stage and the accused must wait for the amendment order to challenge it.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing the order of adjournment to amend the charge dismissed.

Ambikuttan @ Ambili Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 8 of 2010() ---------------------------------SC.1287/04 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, NEDUMANGAD ..........

¶5

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: -----------------------------------------

¶6

AMBIKUTTAN @ AMBILI, S/O.RAMAN, T.C.33/184, NEAR POST OFFICE, ANAYARA DESOM, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

BY ADV. MR.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------

¶9

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

¶10

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

Kss

¶13

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶14

Crl.M.C.NO.8 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 14^th January 2010

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Petitioner is the accused in

¶17

S.C.1287/2004 on the file Assistant Sessions Judge, Nedumangad. According to the petitioner charge was framed for the offence under Section 366 A of Indian

¶18

Penal Code and after closing the evidence, including the defence evidence, at the time of hearing the case, learned Sessions Judge adjourned the case for amendment of the charge without a speaking order. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the said order.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public

¶20

Crmc 8/10

¶21

¶22

Prosecutor were heard.

¶23

that the prosecution evidence in the case was closed on 30/10/2009 and the petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of Code of

¶24

Criminal Procedure on 10/11/2009 and defence evidence was closed on 4/12/2009 and at the time of hearing, case was adjourned stating that amendment of the charge is required, without showing what amendment is necessary and on the what basis and therefore, the order is to be quashed. Apart from producing AnnexureA1 proceeding paper, petitioner did not produce

¶25

any material including the charge. It cannot be said that a Sessions Judge is not entitled to amend the charge after closing of the evidence, if interest of justice warrants, as provided

¶26

under the Code. The question of a speaking

¶27

Crmc 8/10 3

¶28

order would arise, when the charge is being amended. Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the order passed by learned Sessions Judge adjourning the case finding that amendment of the charge is required. It is for the learned Sessions Judge to decide what amendment in the charge is necessary. If advised, petitioner is entitled to challenge the order amending the charge.

¶29

Petition is dismissed.

¶30

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶31

uj.

Ambikuttan @ Ambili v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambikuttan @ Ambili 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

Dipin K.V. Vs State of Kerala

D.Thankan Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Velayduhan @ Udarappan Vs State of Kerala

Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Reghunath Vs State of Kerala