Quashed

Sukumaran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jul 2013Crl.MC/1404/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order dismissing a petition to admit fees for a second forensic sample analysis. It directed the trial court to accept fees deposited within 10 days and proceed with the analysis to expedite the trial, noting it was unjustified to review an earlier favorable order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; lower court directed to admit fees deposited within 10 days and send second sample for chemical analysis.

Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2013/17TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1404 of 2013 (A)

¶6

[S.C.NO.755/2010 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II, PALAKKAD]

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO 1:

¶8

SUKUMARAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O UNNIRAMAN, CHERKKULAM HOUSE, THEKKUMMURI DESOM, CHERPULASSERI, OTTAPALAM TALUK.

¶9

BY SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA.

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Prv.

¶15

CRL.M.C. NO.1404/2013-A:

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEXURE. A: CARBON COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-1-2013 IN CRL. M.P NO. 3198/2012 IN S.C NO. 755/2010 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, PALAKKAD. ANEXURE.B: CERTIFIED OF THE ORDER DATED 16-03-2013 IN CRL M.P NO. 655/2013 IN S.C. NO. 755/2010 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, PALAKKAD. ANNEXURE.C: CARBON COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-03-2013 IN CRL. M.P NO. 712/2013 IN S.C. NO. 755/2010 PASSED BY THE II ADDL, SESSIONS JUDGE, PALAKKAD.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S' ANNEXURES: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No. 1404 of 2013

¶25

---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8^th day of July, 2013

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioner, who is the first accused in S.C.No.755 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Court-II, Palakkad Division preferred the above Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexures B and C orders passed by the said court and also seeks an order directing the court to permit the petitioner to comply with the directions in Annexure A order.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

It appears that as per Annexure A order dated 11.1.2013, the court below allowed Crl.M.P.No.3198 of 2012 and the petitioner

¶30

was directed to take steps to send the second sample for chemical analysis and report. The present grievance of the petitioner is that

¶31

Crl.M.C.No. 1404 of 2013 :-2-:

¶32

subsequently, by Annexure C, the petition i.e., Crl.M.P.No.712 of 2013 was dismissed wherein the prayer is for permitting the petitioner to remit the requisite fee and charges as per rules and laws for sending the second sample for chemical analysis as ordered as per Anenxure A order. By Annexure C order, according to the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner has miserably failed to deposit the fees and charges within the time granted as per Annexure A order and therefore, the belated remittance cannot be accepted and as such, Crl.M.P.No.712 of 2013 cannot be entertained. But on a perusal of Annexure C order, it appears that instead of dismissing Crl.M.P.No.712 of 2013 on the ground of the delay in remitting the amount, the learned Sessions Judge entered into a detailed discussion, in effect reviewing his earlier order relying upon the decision reported in Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics [2013(1) KLD 349 (SC)] and rejected the above petition filed by the petitioner/accused.

¶33

Crl.M.C.No. 1404 of 2013

¶34

:-3-:

¶35

I am unable to sustain the above order and the reason

¶36

given by the court below in Annexure C order. It appears that as per Annexure A order, the learned Judge has already made up his mind and permitted the petitioner/accused to get analysis the second sample and accordingly, ordered the petitioner to pay requisite fee and charge. However, the petitioner fails to deposit the above amount and charge within the time. It is beyond dispute that the result upon analysis of the second sample will have a bearing upon the prosecution against the petitioner and therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it was up to the court to decide whether the second sample should send for chemical analysis or not at the request of the accused. In the present case, initially that was considered and found in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, an order was passed vide Annexure A. Therefore, according to me, it is for the court below to see that the conditions stipulated therein are complied with. If there is any lapse on the part of the petitioner in

¶37

Crl.M.C.No. 1404 of 2013

¶38

:-4-:

¶39

complying with the same, the same can be dealt with accordingly. But, the court will not be justified in reviewing its earlier order and come into a contra conclusion to dismiss the subsequent petition filed with a prayer to receive the requisite fee and charge.

¶40

In the result, Annexure C order is unsustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside and the court below is directed to receive the requisite fee and charge as ordered in Annexure A, if the same is deposited by the petitioner within ten days from today, treating the same as compliance of Annexure A order and take steps to send the second sample for chemical analysis and to get a report as early as possible, so as to expedite the trial in the above case.

¶41

V.K.MOHANAN, Judge

¶42

MBS/

¶43

Crl.M.C.No. 1404 of 2013

¶44

:-5-:

Sukumaran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumaran 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

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Nazer Vs Ashokkumar

P.Rahim Vs E.P.Jayarajan

P.K. Koyakutty Vs the State of Kerala

Rmp Infotech Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

Basil Vs State of Kerala