Dismissed

Mohan Das v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Oct 2012Crl.MC/3215/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an inherent jurisdiction petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court of Kerala rejected the accused petitioners' plea to recall prosecution witnesses. The court distinguished a cited precedent regarding the Prevention of Corruption Act, noting the current charges were bailable and granting relief would vex witnesses due to counsel change.

What did the court decide?

The petition invoking the inherent powers of the court under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed.

Mohan Das Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/26TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3215 of 2012 (B)

¶6

IN CC.780/2007 of J.M.F.C.-IV,KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:-

¶8

1. MOHAN DAS, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.APPU, KARIMBIL HOUSE, JOSEPH ROAD, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM.

¶9

2. DEVARAJAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.APPU, KARIMBIL HOUSE, JOSEPH ROAD, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM.

¶10

3. SANTHA, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.DEVARAJAN, KARIMBIL HOUSE, JOSEPH ROAD, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM.

¶11

4. SHEEBA, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.MOHAN DAS, KARIMBIL HOUSE, JOSEPH ROAD, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶13

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRA KRISHNAN

¶14

RESPONDENT / STATE: -

¶15

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 (CRIME NO.68/2005 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE)

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. R. RANJITH

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 3215 of 2012 (B)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶21

ANNEXURE I : COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE, DATED 16.01.2012.

¶22

ANNEXURE II : COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.299/2012 IN CC NO. 780/2007.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,J.

¶28

--------------------------------------Crl.M.C. NO. 3215 of 2012

¶29

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2012

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Petitioners are some of the accused in a pending case numbered as C.C. No. 780 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kozhikode. The trial of that case is now in progress. Petitioners are being prosecuted in the above case for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They moved an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after a change of their counsel, setting forth a case that previously when PW1 to PW3 were examined some material questions to be put to them were omitted and so much so for a fair and just decision of the case those witnesses have to be recalled and further examined. Learned magistrate dismissed that application by Annexure II order. That order is challenged invoking the

¶32

Crl.M.C. NO. 3215 of 2012

¶33

¶34

inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short the 'Code'.

¶35

Learned counsel for petitioners inviting my attention to P. Sanjeeva Rao Versus State of A.P. [2012 AIAR (Criminal) 707] contended that for the purpose of discovery of truth which is the essential purpose for which the court exists, a request made by an accused facing trial that recalling of witness already examined is essential for a fair decision has to be liberally considered. I am not impressed by the submission made by the counsel. The facts and circumstances presented in the reported decision would indicate the accused proceeded against in that case, who

¶36

faced an indictment for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, had moved an application to defer the examination of some material witnesses till the Police Officer who laid the trap was examined. That application was dismissed by the trial Judge recording

¶37

Crl.M.C. NO. 3215 of 2012

¶38

¶39

'no cross' with respect to some of the prosecution witnesses. Analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case with regard to the ambit and scope of Section 311 of the Code, more particularly the gravity of the offences covered by the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Apex court has stated that a liberal approach to be followed when requests are made under Section 311 for recalling or summoning a witness is asked for in a criminal trial. In the present case all the offences imputed against the petitioners are shown to be bailable. The case taken cognizance by the magistrate on a police report awaits completion of trial even after five years. Change of the counsel by the petitioners cannot be a ground to vex and harass the material witnesses by recalling them again to appear before the court for giving further evidence in the case. Other than stating that some material questions were omitted to be put to such witnesses nothing more is stated in the petition filed by the petitioners for invoking

¶40

Crl.M.C. NO. 3215 of 2012

¶41

¶42

Section 311 of the Code to recall such witnesses. I do not find any impropriety in Annexure II order passed by the learned magistrate disallowing the request made by the petitioners.

¶43

Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

¶44

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE.

¶45

DMR /-

Mohan Das v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Das 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.S.Jeevakumar Vs the Inspector of Factories & Boilers Gr

Vijesh Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Bimal Vs the State of Kerala

Damodaran P. Vs Renu v.Nampoothiri

Sreekanth Vs State of Kerala

Jayakumar Vs Excise Range Inspector