Petitioner sought extension of acquittal benefit granted to a co-accused in a split trial while he remained absent. Court held that an abscnding accused cannot encash the judgment passed in a separate case and directed expeditious disposal.
Petitioner not entitled to benefit of co-accused's acquittal; court directed to dispose case expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/14TH ASWINA, 1937
Crl.MC.No. 1494 of 2015
CC 1403/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM CC.424/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM CRIME NO. 1079/2007 OF MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:
IRFAN HABEEB, S/O UMMER, PICHANVEETTIL HOUSE, KOZHIKKATTUKUNNU, MELAKKAYAM, MANJERI.
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
Crl.MC.No. 1494 of 2015
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.424/2008 OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM.
ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.424/2008 OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM, DATED 29.11.2014.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
=================== CRL.M.C. No.1494 of 2015
==================== Dated this the 6th day of October, 2015
O R D E R
The petitioner is A4 in Crime No. 1079 of 2007 of the Malappuram Police Station. Altogether there were 5 accused. A1 to A3 were absconding. The petitioner and A5 participated in the trial in C.C.No.424 of 2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Malappuram in the matter. At the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C., it seems that the petitioner absconded. The case against A5 alone was proceeded with, which culminated in an acquittal through Annexure B judgment. The court below has split up and re-filed the case against A1 and A4 as C.C.No.1403 of 2014.
CRL.M.C. No.1494 of 2015 2
A5.
the petitioner was identified by the prosecution witnesses. Whatever it is, it is not possible to quash the proceedings against the petitioner based on Annexure B judgment. At the same time, the court below is directed to have an expeditious disposal of the case against the petitioner. In case A1 to A3 are still absconding, the case against them can be split up
and the case against the petitioner can be proceeded with.
With the said observations, this Crl.M.C. is closed.
Sd/-
B. KEMAL PASHA JUDGE
DSV/7/10/15
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an absconding accused is entitled to the benefit of acquittal recorded in a separate trial where another accused was acquitted due to the petitioner's absence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
IRFAN HABEEB
STATE OF KERALA
B. KEMAL PASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
