Dismissed

Arjunan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jun 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1221/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Kerala dismissed an application for revision against an order upholding the justices inability to grant acquittal or discharge. The Bench found that the prosecution case was sustainable under the relevant acts. No scope for interference was perceived. The order of lower court was upheld. The challenge against the date of 2012 is liable to fail. The revision petition is accordingly dismi

What did the court decide?

The challenge against the order dated 5-3-2012 of the learned Magistrate is dismissed.

Arjunan Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/21ST JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1221 of 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP.NO.3291/2012 IN CC.NO.682/2008 of J.M.F.C.-I, NEDUMANGAD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶8

1. ARJUNAN

¶9

VINOD BHAVAN, POOLANTHARA, KOLIYAKKODU VILLAGE

¶10

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. GEETHA, W/O.ARJUNAN,

¶12

VINOD BHAVAN, POOLANTHARA, KOLIYAKKODU VILLAGE

¶13

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3. MANIYAN,

¶15

PULICKAKONATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, POOLANTHARA KOLIYAKKODU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

4. SURESHKUMAR,

¶17

ANKANAMMULA VEEDU, THITTAYATHUKONAM, AMBALLOOR

¶18

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

BY ADVS.SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN

¶20

SRI.AVANEESH KOYIKKARA

¶21

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶22

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VENJARAMMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.

¶23

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶25

ON 11-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ===========================

¶27

CRL. R.P. NO. 1221 of 2012 ===========================

¶28

Dated this the 11^th day of June 2012

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

This revision petition has been filed against the order in C.M.P. No. 3291 of 2012 in C.C. No. 682 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad. The revision petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the said case and they are indicted for offences under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908. The above C.M.P. was filed seeking discharge under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶31

The charge against the petitioners is as

¶32

follows :- “ല�സനസ� ഇല�ത� കര�മര�ന� ലകവശ� വച��റ ത��ട�ച� മന�ഷ�ജ�വന� ആ�ത� വര �തണതമന�ള ഉദ$ശദത�ട ��

¶33

CRL. R.P. NO. 1221 of 2012 # 2#

¶34

കര��ദ��ട�� ക&ട� 1-0 2-0 പ��കള�തട ലകവശത��

¶35

ഉടമസ�യ�� ഉള ദക��യദ/�ട� വ�ദലജ�ല ട� മ�റ�യ�ല �&�നറ എന സ�ത �ള ��റമടയ�ല �ക� വക

¶36

കര�മര�ന��ടങങ�യ Explosive Substance കള ഉ�ദയ�ഗ�ച� മന�ഷ�ജ�വന� ആ�ത� വരത/വ�ധ� 3-0 4-0 പ��കതള ഉ�ദയ�ഗ�ച� അ�ക�മ�യ� കര�മര�ന� ലകക�ര�� ത;യ�ന��തന

¶37

12-)0 സ�ക� മ ��ല ദ�ര�ല 16-2-02 ലവക� 4.20

¶38

മണ�/� ട� ക@�റ�യ�ല വച�ക�ണതAട പ��കള ദമല വക�A�കള പ�ക�രമ�ള ശ�ക�രCമ�യ ക�ററ� മനസ�ത� ത;യ��ര�/ �ന� എന�ളള��.”

¶39

The contention of the petitioners is that the offence under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act would not lie against them even if the entire prosecution case is taken as correct. According to them, at best, they would attract an offence under section 9 (B) (1) (b) of the Explosive Substances Act.

¶40

I have heard the learned Counsel for the

¶41

CRL. R.P. NO. 1221 of 2012 # 3#

¶42

petitioners and also the learned public prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioners virtually reiterated the contentions raised before the learned Magistrate for taking up the plea of discharge.

¶43

In the context of the contentions, it is relevant to note that earlier the petitioners had approached this court by filing Crl. M.C. No. 3817 of 2011 under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Evidently, the revision petitioner had taken up the plea that even if the entire allegations are taken as correct they would not constitute offences under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Evidently, such contentions did not find favour with this court. True that it was without entering on any finding on merits that as the order dated 15-2-2012 this court disposed of the said Crl. M.C. granting liberty to approach the trial court by raising the plea for discharge under section 239 of the Code of

¶44

CRL. R.P. NO. 1221 of 2012 # 4#

¶45

Criminal Procedure. The trial court after such consideration of the application for discharge with reference to the relevant provisions viz; Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 9 B (i) (b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 as also the final report and the materials sent along with it found that the prosecution under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act is sustainable. Consequently, it was held that the petitioners are not entitled to discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

¶46

There can be no doubt that the obligation to discharge an accused under Section 239 would arise only when the Magistrate formed the opinion that the charge against the accused is groundless and certainly, for doing so he has to record his reasons. Therefore, the question is whether the charge in this case can be said to be groundless. A charge can be said to be 'groundless' if the materials are such that even if they remain

¶47

CRL. R.P. NO. 1221 of 2012 # 5#

¶48

unrebutted, make out no offence whatsoever. The charge against the petitioners has already been extracted. Evidently, the application was considered by the learned Magistrate taking into account the final report, the materials sent along with it and with reference to Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The petitioners have no case that licence is not required to possess the seized explosives to conduct quarrying. The learned Magistrate held that prima facie case is made out to the effect that the petitioner were in conscious possession of 150 gms. of gun powder for making explosion in the quarry for which they got no licence and such action, in the eye of law, cannot be treated one for a lawful object. The learned Magistrate, in the circumstances, held that Section 5 of the Explosives Act will attract in this case. That apart, it is held that the mere possession of explosive substance by itself will attract Section 9 B (i) (b) of the Explosives Act. Even according to the revision petitioners the allegations may attract offence under the

¶49

CRL. R.P. NO. 1221 of 2012 # 6#

¶50

said provision of the Explosives Act. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, in the circumstances,

¶51

cannot be said to be perverse or on the face of the records incorrect or glaringly unreasonable. Any further examination of the issue is uncalled for in the circumstances.

¶52

The upshot of the discussion is that the

¶53

charge against the petitioners cannot be said to be groundless. The petitioners have failed to bring out a case warranting interference by invoking the revisional power by this court. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for. The challenge against the order dated 5-3-2012 of the learned Magistrate is liable to fail

¶54

and accordingly it is dismissed.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶57

/True copy/

¶58

P.A.to Judge

¶59

kvr/

Arjunan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjunan 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

K.Jayendran Vs State of Kerala

Balakrishnan Vs Aboobacker

T.M. Jayachandran Vs Sri. K.G.Mohanlal

Kishor T.P Vs M/S Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd.

Omanakuttan Vs Girish Kumar

Girish Babu Vs the State of Kerala