Disposed

Reghukumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Mar 2014Crl.MC/1551/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous case involved an application by the accused, Reghukumar, to recall a non-bailable warrant issued due to his non-appearance after an illness. The High Court distinguished a cited precedent and held that the High Court cannot usurp the Magistrate Court's discretionary powers to recall the warrant or grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to surrender and move for recall of warrant and bail in the concerned Magistrate Court; the Magistrate must consider reasons for non-appearance on the date of surrender.

Reghukumar Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/19TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1551 of 2014 () --------------------------

¶6

CP 9/2014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRTAE COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA

¶7

-------

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶9

------------------

¶10

REGHUKUMAR, S/O. KRISHNAN, RAHUL BHAVANAM, VETTIYAR VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.ARUN BOSE

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶13

----------------------

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTING THE EXCISE INSEPCTOR, NOORNADU EXCISE RANGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN- 690 101.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE P.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 1551 of 2014 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶21

ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE NO. L-337/09 DT. 3/6/2009 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL ALAPPUZHA.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

Crl.M.C 1551 of 2014

-------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2014

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

This is an application filed by the accused in CP 9/2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Court No.1, Mavelikkara to issue directions to that court recall the warrant invoking power under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.

¶31

It is alleged in the petition, that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person with 50% permanent disability evidenced by Ext.P1 disability certificate. He is the sole accused CP 9/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Mavelikkara which originated on the basis of the Crime No.57/2013 of Noornadu Excise Range alleging offences under Section 55 (g) of the Abkari Act.

¶32

The case of the prosecution was that on 08.05.2013, when the excise party reached near the Government Upper Primary School Arunootimangalam, they got information that one Reghukumar was keeping wash and arrack in his house with No. T.PXVI/494 of Thazhakara Panchayat and on reaching the house after complying with the formalities to conduct search, the accused ran away from there

¶33

¶34

Crl.M.C 1551 of 2014

¶35

and though they followed him, they could not succeed in their attempt and when search was conducted, 140 liters of wash was seized from that house, thereby he had committed offences punishable under section 55(g) of Abkari Act. The petitioner was not aware of such incident in that case till he received summons directing him to appear before the court on 03.03.2014. Since he was not well, on account of an injury caused in an accident he appeared through counsel and filed an application for condonation for his absence. But the learned Magistrate rejected his application and issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. It is against the dictum laid down in the decision in Sreekumar Vs. State of Kerala [2008 (3) KLT 748]. Fearing arrest and further harassments, he was constrained to move this court seeking the following reliefs:

¶36

“to recall the Non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner/accused in C.P.No.9/2014 by the Honourable Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Mavelikara”

¶37

Considering the nature of relief claimed in the petition, this court felt that the petition can be disposed of at

¶38

Crl.M.C 1551 of 2014

¶39

¶40

the admission stage itself after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶41

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is a handicapped person and he is prepared to appear through counsel throughout as he is unable to attend the court. He has also relied on the decision reported in Sreekumar's Case (supra).

¶42

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶43

It is clear from the admission made in the petition itself, that it was not a case where he was not served with any summons. He had received summons, but according to him an application has been filed stating his illness, but that application was dismissed by the court below and non bailable warrant was issued and he apprehends remand by that court. The dictum laid own in the decision reported in Sreekumar's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. That was the case where, immediately on receipt of summons apprehending remand, he come to this court. In such circumstances, this court has found that, the apprehension is without any basis and there is no necessity to issue any order

¶44

¶45

Crl.M.C 1551 of 2014

¶46

as required in that petition. Here also the apprehension that if he surrenders, he will be remanded is without any basis. He can very well surrender before the concerned Magistrate Court and move for recalling the warrant issued against him stating the reasons for his non-appearance to the satisfaction of that court and also move for regular bail. This court is not expected to issue directions to Magistrate Court to recall warrant, which was issued on account of the non-appearance of the accused. However, that court can consider the question when considering the application for recalling the warrant, if he was represented by counsel and filed an application for absence on that day etc. So the direction as required in the petition as such cannot be granted, as that will amount to usurping the powers of the Magistrate Court in exercising the discretion by that court in considering the bail application, considering the circumstances of each case. So considering the circumstances, this Court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows:

¶47

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned Magistrate Court and move for recalling the warrant and also for releasing him on bail. If such applications

¶48

¶49

Crl.M.C 1551 of 2014

¶50

are filed, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the reasons stated in the petition for his non-appearance and also pass appropriate orders on the applications filed by the petitioner after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor of the court in accordance with law as far as possible on the date of surrender and filing the application of itself.

¶51

With the above direction and observation this petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this matter to the concerned court immediately.

¶52

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶53

jm/

Reghukumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reghukumar 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

Padmakumari Vs the State of Kerala

Roopesh A.K Vs Prajith

Shahir R.K. Vs Theshina

E. Abdul Jaleel Vs the Station House Officer

Baskaran Vs State of Kerala

Divyanatha Shetty Vs the State of Kerala