Allowed

Santhosh Kumar v. Selvaraj

Kerala HC12 Sept 2012Crl.MC/1328/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous petition, the Kerala High Court allowed the de facto complainant to produce original seized day-book and cash book of a Cooperative Society before the trial court as crucial evidence, holding that the seizure meant no prejudice to the accused would result.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is allowed to produce the original day-book and cash book records before the Court.

Santhosh Kumar Vs Selvaraj — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/21ST BHADRA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1328 of 2007 ( ) --------------------------CC.869/2006 of J.M.F.C.,AMBALAPUZHA

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶7

SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.GOPIDAS, GOVINDALAYAM VEEDU, WARD.NO.13. PUNNAPRA THEKKUM PANCHAYATH.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI SMT.VINEENA KRISHNAN

¶9

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND STATE:

¶10

1. SELVARAJ, S/O.DAYANANDAN,

¶11

WARD.NO.8, AGED.30 YEARS, KUTTUNGHAL VEEDU

¶12

PUNNAPPRA NORTH PANCHAYATH.

¶13

2. SANAL KUMAR, AGED.40 YEARS, RANDUKAYYI VEEDU, WARD.NO.8

¶14

PUNNAPPRA NORTH PANCHAYATH.

¶15

3. DEVARAJAN, THEKKEPARAMBIL,

¶16

WARD.NO.8, AGED.30 YEARS

¶17

PUNNAPPRA NORTH PANCHAYATH.

¶18

4. MADHU, VADAKKEPARAMBIL, WARD.NO.8, AGED.30 YEARS PUNNAPPRA NORTH PANCHAYATH.

¶19

5. SATHEESH BABU,

¶20

NADUVELEPARAMBIL, WARD.NO.12 PUNNAPPRA NORTH PANCHAYATH.

¶21

6. PANKAJAKSHAN, NADUVEILEPARAMBIL,

¶22

WARD.NO.1O, PUNNAPPRA NORTH PANCHAYATH.

¶23

7. SURESH KUMAR, VADAKKEPARAMBIL,

¶24

WARD.NO.8, PUNNAPPRA NORTH PANCHAYATH.

¶25

8. AJAYAGHOSH, VADAKKEPARAMBU VELI VEEDU,

¶26

WARD.NO.8, PUNNAPPRA NORTH PANCHAYATH.

¶27

Crl.MC.No. 1328 of 2007 ( )

¶28

-2-

¶29

9. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶30

BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR BY ADV. SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN BY ADV. SMT.T.J.SEEMA BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR BY ADV. SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

JJJ

¶33

Crl.MC.No. 1328 of 2007 ( )

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:

¶36

ANNEXURE A-1	COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET
ANNEXURE A-2	COPY OF THE CMP NO:1135/2007 IN C.C. 869/06 FILED BY
	THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT BELOW
ANNEXURE A-3	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.4.2007 IN CMP
	NO:1135/2007 IN C.C NO:869/2006 OF JFCM AMBALAPPUZHA

¶37

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

JJJ

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶42

Crl. M.C. No: 1328 of 2007

¶43

Dated this the 12^th day of September, 2012

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

The petitioner is the de facto complainant. Pursuant to the complaint filed by him, investigation was conducted in the matter and the charge sheet was laid against the accused persons alleging offence under section 406 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶46

After the charge sheet was laid the de facto complainant filed a petition before the learned Magistrate seeking direction to the Investigating Officer to permit him

¶47

to produce the original day-book and cash book of the Cooperative Society. That request was turned down by the learned Magistrate stating that it would amount to further investigation under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that, in fact, the aforesaid records, namely the day book

¶49

Crl.M.C. No: 1328/2007

¶50

-2-

¶51

and cash book, were seized by the Police in the course of investigation and were given back to the petitioner. Therefore, they are crucial records which are necessary for the proper adjudication of the points in dispute. That fact was only brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate to see that no delay is caused on that ground. I do not find any reason to sustain the order passed by the learned Magistrate, since those registers were seized by the Investigating Officer. Since those registers were to be produced before the Court to prove the points involved for a proper trial, the petitioner should be permitted to produce those records before Court. No prejudice, what so ever, will be caused to the accused persons since these registers were seized by the Police during investigation. Even during trial the Prosecutor can request the court to direct the witness to produce those registers. If it is produced sufficiently early, it will help the prosecution and defence.

¶52

Crl.M.C. No: 1328/2007

¶53

-3-

¶54

In the result this petition is allowed. The petitioner is allowed to produce those original records before Court.

¶55

Sd/N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,

JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A. to Judge

jjj

Santhosh Kumar v. Selvaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh Kumar v. Selvaraj

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

Dr.Kamala Rajaram Vs Dy.S.P. Office of the S.P.(Rural)

Shoukkath Vs State of Kerala & Another

P.Gopinathan Nair Vs State of Kerala and Another

C.M.Muneer Vs State of Kerala

Suo Moto Vs M.Dhanudas

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala