Allowed

Dietz Gen Credo Sooner v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 May 2013Crl.Rev.Pet/1025/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1025 of 2013, the Kerala High Court addressed an appeal against an order dismissing an application for the accused to travel abroad for employment due to a pending criminal trial. The court emphasized the excessive delay and directed the trial court to expedite proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Magistrate to examine remaining witnesses within one month and dispose of the trial case on day-to-day basis.

Dietz Gen Credo Sooner Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2013/3RD JYAISHTA 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1025 of 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 706/2007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOCHI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

DIETZ GEN CREDO SOONER, AGED 39, S/O.C P SOONER, CHUDUKATTUNGAL HOUSE, NEAR LIGHT HOUSE, PUTHUVYPE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682508

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF

¶10

SMT.MOLLY JACOB

¶11

SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K.

¶12

COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA,

¶14

REP. BY S I OF POLICE, NJARACKAL IN CRIME NO. 235/04

¶15

BY SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1025 of 2013

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANN.A1: COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOCHI IN C.C. NO.706/07.

¶22

ANN.A2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23/3/2013 IN C.M.P.NO.594/13 IN C.C.NO.706/07 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOCHI.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.HARILAL, J.

= = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.1025 of 2013 == = = = = = = = = = ===

¶29

Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2013

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The Revision petitioner is the 1^st accused in C.C.No.706/2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi. Now he is being prosecuted for the offence punishable u/s 498A of IPC. The case has been registered on the basis of a petition filed by the defacto complainant alleging cruelty. He had furnished bail on 24/06/2008. There was no condition preventing him from going abroad or surrendering his passport. At the instance of the defacto complainant, police seized his passport and produced in the court below. The passport was released to him on 13/09/2010, to enable him to go abroad for employment. Thus, the case is pending for the last five years. According to the Revision petitioner, prosecution is protracting the case for harassing the Revision petitioner as well as

¶32

Crl.R.P.No.1025 of 2013 2

¶33

members of his family. In the meanwhile, at the instance of the defacto complainant the passport officer initiated proceedings for impounding the passport, which is under challenge before this court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.12154/2013. The petitioner is a seaman and his work is mainly in the offshore vessels and duration of the work at a stretch will be 2 to 3 months. Now he has better offers for employment from abroad. But now he is unable to accept the said offers on the fact that a criminal prosecution is pending against him. In the above circumstance, he filed C.M.P.No.594/2013 in C.C.No.706/2007 seeking permission to go abroad for employment; but the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition by the order under challenge.

¶34

Going by the impugned order, it could be seen that the Assistant Public Prosecutor strictly opposed the said application without filing a counter. According to the Assistant Public Prosecutor, since September, 2010 the 1^st accused has not been appearing before the court and it is

¶35

Crl.R.P.No.1025 of 2013 3

¶36

not desirable to permit the accused to go abroad at the fag end of the prosecution evidence. If the accused is permitted to go abroad at this stage, he will not be available to questioning u/s 313 Cr.P.C and the case could not be proceeded further.

¶37

Going by the rival submissions of both parties, one thing is clear; the prosecution initiated in the year 2007 and the case is pending trial since the last more than five years, ie, from 2007. The impugned order states that PWs.1 to 9 were already examined. Only three short witnesses are alone to be examined including the investigating officer who laid the final report and the case was posted to 12/04/2013 for examination of the above witnesses, as last chance. Now the case stands again posted to 10/06/2013. Sri.T.M.Mohammed Youseff, the learned senior counsel for the Revision petitioner advanced argument highlighting the hard ship and heavy loss which is being caused by the long delay in disposing the case and I have given my anxious

¶38

Crl.R.P.No.1025 of 2013 4

¶39

consideration to his submissions at the Bar.

¶40

Going by the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that an accused cannot be denied of an opportunity to go

¶41

abroad and seek employment only on the reason that the case is pending against him. More importantly, the petitioner is being prosecuted since the last more than five years. At the same time, the objection of the prosecution that in a criminal trial, the presence of the accused is necessary and that must be ensured by taking precautionary and preventive measures also cannot be brushed aside. In view of the above circumstance, I am of the opinion that proper remedy in this case is nothing other than speedy disposal of the case.

¶42

Therefore, the learned Magistrate is directed to expedite steps against the witnesses to be examined and examine the remaining witnesses, within one month. Trial shall be conducted on day to day basis. At any rate, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case within

¶43

Crl.R.P.No.1025 of 2013

¶44

¶45

a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of

¶46

this order.

¶47

This Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶48

K.HARILAL, JUDGE.

¶49

Stu

¶50

//True copy//

¶51

P.A to Judge.

Dietz Gen Credo Sooner v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dietz Gen Credo Sooner 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramankutty Vs the Excise Inspector

The Assistant Commissioner of Customs Vs K. Muhammed

Gopakumar Vs Basil Baby

M/S.Integrated Finance Co. Vs Sasi.P.

Kelappan C.T. Vs Bhaskaran

M/S.Polynsis Immigration Vs State of Kerala