Bench dismissed criminal miscellaneous petition contending committal relied on original charge sheet despite subsequent Section 173(8) report. Held earlier deletion of other accused does not overturn original basis for remaining accused.
Criminal miscellaneous case dismissed with observation regarding access to documents via Sessions Judge.
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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933
Crl.MC.No. 713 of 2011()
CP.82/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDURG
PETITIONERS - ACCUSED NOS. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 :
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A.IBRAHIM, S/O.M.KADER, MUNAMBAM HOUSE, AMBALATHARA, PULLUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2. V.RATHEESH, S/O.KRISHNAN, ANJAMVAYAL HOUSE, MOONNAM MAILE, PULLUR GRAMAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
3. T.K.NOUSHAD, S/O.KAMMU, THANKAYATH HOUSE, BATHERI, AMMAYIPPARA, WYNAD DISTRICT.
4. ABDULLA, S/O.IBRAHIM, MADIYAN HOUSE, AJANUR GRAMAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
5. V.M.SALIM, S/O.MUHAMMED, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHELAKKARA, TRICHUR NOW AT AMBALATHARA, PULLUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
6. M.IBRAHIM @ IRACHI IBRAHIM, S/O.K.M.ABDUL SALAM, PARAPPALLI HOUSE, AMBALATHARA, PULLUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.
BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
RESPONDENT / STATE :
-----------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI – 31.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYASURYA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 13/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
==================================== Crl. M.C. No.713 of 2011
==================================== Dated this the 13th day of June, 2011
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused 1 and 4 to 8 in Crime No.62 of 2009 of Rajapuram Police Station, C.P. No.82 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg and S.C. No.338 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kasargod for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326 and 316 read with Sections 120(b) and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The original investigating agency submitted final report against 10 accused alleging that accused 9 and 10 conspired with accused 1 to 8 in the commission of the offence. While the matter was pending in court Investigating Officer sought permission for further investigation which was granted. He submitted a further report after further investigation stating that accused 9 and 10 are not involved in the alleged conspiracy and commission of offence. The investigating agency requested that accused 9 and 10 may be deleted from the array of accused. Learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions against all accused (including accused 9 and 10) for trial as per Annexures III and IV, orders. Those orders were challenged by
CRL.M.C. No.713 of 2011
-: 2 :-
accused 9 and 10 in Crl. M.C. No.355 of 2010 in this Court. This Court as per Annexure-V, order dated May 19, 2010 allowed that petition to the extent it concerned accused 9 and 10. Learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence against accused 1 to 8 and filed S.C. No.338 of 2009.
CRL.M.C. No.713 of 2011
-: 3 :-
and it has nothing to do with the final report against petitioners.
CRL.M.C. No.713 of 2011
-: 4 :-
is relevant to note from Annexure-II, report that it makes no mention about the (alleged) involvement of accused 1 to 8 and instead referring to the further investigation conducted it is stated that such investigation revealed that accused 9 and 10 are not involved in the alleged incident.
and 4 to 8 against whom the original report stands. Even in Annexure-II, report there is no departure from the original report so far as petitioners are concerned. If that be so committal of petitioners on he basis of Annexure-II would stand.
CRL.M.C. No.713 of 2011
-: 5 :-
whose involvement was not interfered with in the subsequent report. That is not what is contemplated by the further report under Sec.173 (8) of the Code.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed with the above
observation.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether committal order against petitioners relies on original report or subsequent Section 173(8) report regarding deleted accused.
Whether defence requires notice of further investigation conducted under Section 173(8) IPC Code.
Whether submission of Section 173(8) report inherently throws open already-committed accused for retrial.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
A. IBRAHIM
V. RATHEESH
T.K. NOUSHAD
ABDULLA
V.M. SALIM
M. IBRAHIM
THOMAS P. JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
