Remanded

Walter Alias Walter Premadasa v. State

Kerala HC4 Nov 2011Crl.MC/3016/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge held that the charge framed under Section 419 IPC was unsustainable in isolation as the challenge bill ignored other offences alleged in the charge sheet. The charge was set aside for the CJM to consider all alleged offences.

What did the court decide?

The charge framed under Section 419 IPC was set aside and remited to the learned CJM to consider all allegations and frame proper charges.

Walter Alias Walter Premadasa Vs State — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3016 of 2011()

¶6

-----------------------------------CRRP.54/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-1, PALAKKAD CC.87/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD ....................

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED

¶8

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

¶9

WALTER ALIAS WALTER PREMADAS ALIAS MOHAMMED HUSSAIN ALIAS MOHAMMED,S/O.GEORGE ALIAS SAIDUBAWA RAWTHER,AGED 58 YEARS,R/AT MISSIONCOMPOUND,MEPARAMBA,PALAKKAD TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.A.V.RAVI SRI.M.SUGADHA KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶12

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

¶13

STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

CRMC.NO.3016/2011

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEX A COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET ISSUED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD IN CC NO.87/2007 DATED 24/04/2008.

¶21

ANNEX B COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE CHARGE SHEET ISSUED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD IN CC NO.87/2007 DATED 24/04/2008.

¶22

ANNEX C COPY OF THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL DATED 24/06/2011 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-1, PALAKKAD IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.54/2008.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶28

Crl.M.C. No.3016 of 2011

¶29

Dated this the 4^th day of November 2011

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order framing charge against the petitioner/accused under Sec.419 IPC cannot be sustained at all. The charge framed by the court, Annexure A shows only the offence under Sec.419 IPC. The petitioner challenged that order before the Sessions Court in Crl.R.P.No.54/2008. The petitioner raised all his contentions. That Crl.R.P. was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised so many grounds to fortify his submission that the charge framed against the accused cannot be sustained.

¶32

On going through Annexure C order, it is seen that the charge sheet was laid by the police officer alleging commission of offences under Secs.406, 419, 420, 467, 468

¶33

Crl.M.C. No.3016 of 2011

¶34

and 471 of IPC. No order passed by the learned CJM discharging the accused of other offences (other than 419) is seen. Similarly, though the learned Sessions Judge also in paragraph 2 of the order has referred other sections mentioned earlier, nothing is seen stated as to whether the learned CJM has passed an order discharging the accused of all other offences. To have a proper appreciation of the case put forward by the accused, that also may have to be considered. The learned Sessions Judge has only dealt with the point relating to the charge framed under Sec.419 of IPC. It is not known what is the order passed by the learned CJM with regard to other offences which was mentioned in the charge sheet laid by the police.

¶35

So, considering all the aspects, I find that the charge now framed by the learned CJM in C.C.No.87/2007 has to be set aside. The learned CJM will go through the entire records and find what are the offences, in any in respect of which the charges have to be framed. The

¶36

Crl.M.C. No.3016 of 2011

¶37

-: 3 :-

¶38

petitioner can advance all his contentions before the learned Magistrate in support of his contention that the charge is unsustainable. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.

¶39

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶40

Jvt

Walter Alias Walter Premadasa v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Walter Alias Walter Premadasa v. State

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

State of Kerala Vs C.H.Moosa @ Mossan.C.H.

Krishnan Vs State

The Secretary Vellur Service Society Vs State and Another

Ambikadevi Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Mohammed Vs K.Sadasivan

Paulose K.V. Vs State of Kerala