Allowed

Ashok Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jun 2014Crl.MC/2879/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court directed the trial magistrate to dispose of a pending criminal case involving the petitioner within six months, emphasizing the constitutional right to speedy trial and the adverse impact of the pending case on the petitioner's business.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Attingal, to dispose of CC. No. 197 of 2010 within six months, and to split the case if other accused fail to appear.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/20TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2879 of 2014

¶6

CC NO.197/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, ATTINGAL CRIME NO. 528/2009 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED:

¶8

ASHOK KUMAR, S/O. ACHUTHAN, POOVANATHUM VILLAKAM VEEDU, AZHOOR, CHIRAYINKEEL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Kss

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 2879 of 2014

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.528/09 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, DATED 3.7.09.

¶19

ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.7.2011 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------N I L Kss

¶21

/TRUE COPY/

¶22

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶23

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶24

================= CRL.M.C.NO.2879 OF 2014

¶25

===================== Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2014

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the accused in CC.No.197 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Attingal for speedy disposal of the case under Section 482 Code of Criminal procedure.

¶28

It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the first accused in CC.No.197 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Attingal which was originated on the basis of the case registered as Crime No.528 of 2009 of Attingal police station alleging offences under Section 3 and 7 (1) (a) of Essential Commodities Act and Section 5(a) of Kerala Rationing Order, on the allegation that accused Nos.2 and 3 were found transporting ration rice allotted to the petitioner's ration depot without proper pass. According to the petitioner, the crime was registered only due to the business rivalry at the instigation of some business people who are enimical towards him. On account of the registration of the crime the ration depot of the petitioner has been closed. Unless the case is disposed of, he may not be able to open the depot and he will not get further license as well. So the petitioner has filed a petition before the

¶29

CRL.M.C.NO.2879 OF 2014 2

¶30

lower Court for this purpose and that was dismissed by the Court below. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:-

¶31

direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate No-I, Attingal to dispose of CC.No.197 of 2010 on its file at the earliest, at any rate within a time limit as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶32

Considering the nature of relief claimed in the petition this Court felt that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also getting a report from the concerned Court.

¶33

Accordingly a report has been called for and the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate No-I, Attingal has sent a report which reads as follows:-

¶34

With reference to the above cited letter dated 02-06-2014, I most respectfully submitted that this crime No.528/09 dated 3.7.09 has been registered by Attingal police against one Anas as accused No.I and Ravi as accused No.2 u/s. 3 and 7(1) a, (1) of Essential Commodities Act.

¶35

On the very same day the accused persons were arrested and produced before this court and remanded to judicial custody till 16.07.09. On 16.07.09, A1 and 2 advanced the case and moved bail application through their counsel. The petition was allowed and bail granted to them. Subsequent to

¶36

CRL.M.C.NO.2879 OF 2014 3

¶37

this release order also issued to them. Later on 30.07.09, Sub Inspector of Police, Attingal filed report to the effect that one Asokkumar S/o. Achudanandan is also arrayed as first accused in this case. On 23.2.10 final report filed arraying Asokkumar as A1, Anas as A2 and Ravi as A3 and case was posted to 07.06.2010 for appearance of accused persons. Again on 29.06.10, A1 took bail on advancing the case and executed bail bond. Thereafter the case was posted to 06.07.2010. On that day, A1 filed a discharge petition and the same was dismissed on 4.9.10. Subsequently, A1 appeared before this Court on 20.3.2013 and filed a petition for speedy disposal of the case which in turn was posted for objection and hearing to 03.04.2012. This petition was dismissed on 03.04.2012. Now the case stands for verification of back records and posted to 4.8.2014.

¶38

These being the facts, I most respectfully submitted that I will try my level best to dispose the case within 6 months. I humbly requested that sufficient time may be allowed in this regard.

¶39

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is pending from 2010 onwards and on account of the case, his ration depot has been closed and the Collector has informed that unless the case is disposed of, he cannot permit him to open the ration

¶40

CRL.M.C.NO.2879 OF 2014 4

¶41

shop. So it is highly necessary that the case will have to be disposed of at the earliest.

¶42

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the said Court is crowed with lot of old cases and there is no necessity to give priority for disposal of this case.

¶43

It is an admitted fact that a crime has been registered in the year 2009 as crime No.528 of 2009 of Attingal police station, when they found the vehicle in which accused Nos.2 and 3 were found transporting ration rice allotted to the petitioner's ration depot without proper pass. On that basis, the above crime was registered against the present petitioner and accused Nos.2 and 3 alleging offences under Section 3 and 7(1) (a) of Essential Commodities Act and Section 5(a) of Kerala Rationing Order. It is also an admitted fact that after investigation, final report was filed and the case is now pending as CC.No.197 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Attingal. It is seen from Annexure-A2 order of the District Collector that in view of the pendency of the case, his ration depot has been closed and the suspension order will continue till the disposal of the criminal case pending against him.

¶44

The Constitution of India provides a right for an accused to get a speedy trial of the cases pending against him as in the nature of a fundamental right. But that mandate of the Constitution

¶45

CRL.M.C.NO.2879 OF 2014 5

¶46

could not be fulfilled by the Courts on account of overburden of pendency of large cases in each Court. Though the presiding officer wants to dispose of more cases to achieve the mandate of the Constitution of India, they are unable to achieve the same because of overburden. But at the same time when a accused wants a case to be disposed of at the earliest and now disposal of the case is likely to influence or affect his earning process itself, then the Court must give attention for the same and attempt must be made to fulfill the mandate of the Constitution by giving all efforts to dispose of case at the earliest.

¶47

In this case it is seen from the report that only first accused had appeared though the case was in the year 2009. It is not clear from the report as to whether any steps have been taken to procure the presence of accused Nos. 2 and 3 so far. However non appearance of other accused persons cannot be a ground for prolonging the matter indefinitely, if the appearing accused wants his case to be disposed of at the earliest possible time. So considering the circumstances this court feels that the petition can be disposed of by giving the direction to the concerned Magistrate dispose of the case with the time bound manner accepting the report of the learned Magistrate. So the petition is disposed of as follows:-

¶48

The Judicial First Class Magistrate No-I, Attingal is directed to

¶49

CRL.M.C.NO.2879 OF 2014 6

¶50

take all earnest steps to procure the presence of accused Nos.2 and 3 if they have not appeared so far and expidite disposal of the case CC.No.197 of 2010 pending before that Court as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the accused Nos.2 and 3 are absconding and the Court is satisfied that their presence could not be procured in the near future or within a reasonable time specified by this Court, then the learned Magistrate is directed to take steps to split up the case as against the petitioner and dispose of the same within the time specified by this Court.

¶51

With the above directions and observation, the petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court immediately.

¶52

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶53

R.AV

Ashok Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar 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.K.Vikas Vs State of Kerala

Shaju Vs Prabhan

Eliyamma Vs the Forest Range Officer

Kusumam Vs State of Kerala

Sri.Rahul R.Thampi Vs Akash

Hakkim Sha Vs State of Kerala